
































V 












i 





























































'^ VJ 












.%* % 



k / 



^. ^ 



^ -% 






^ ^ 
.**% 









^ * 8 1 \ 









> ' 










©O x 






*^<^ 






>-*. 












TREATISE 



WHS DlTflUffi HAWIE* 



EXHIBITING THE DISTINCTION 



TBS FATHER, SON. AND HOLY SPIRIT. 



BY HUMPHREY MOORE, 

. Pastor of the Church in Milford, N. H. 



sf-X 1 p «? 



BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED BY SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, 

For the Author. 

Crocker & Brexvster, Printers. 



1824. 






DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS: to wit. 

District Clerk's Office. 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the second day of August, A. D. 1824, in the forty-ninth 

year of the Independence of the United States of America, Samuel T. Armstrong, of the said 

District, has deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietor, 

in the words following, to wit: 

"A Treatise on the Divine Nature, exhibiting the distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. By Humphrey Moore, Pastor of the Church in Milford, N. H. - ' 

In coniormity to rhe Act of the Congress of the United States, intitled, "An act for the en- 
couragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and 
proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;'' and also to an act, intitled, "An 
act supplementary to an Act, intitled, An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing 
the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the 
times therein mentioned; and extending- the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving 
and etching historical, and other prints." 

JNO. W. DAVIS, 
Clerk of the District of Massachusetts, 



PREFACE. 



The design of the author of the following work is to oner 
to the public a brief and systematical treatise on the Divine 
Nature, exhibiting the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. However much has been written on this subject, 
and however ably it has been executed, the writer of these 
sheets has seen no one publication, which has examined all 
the principal sources of evidence of this prominent doctrine 
of the Scriptures. To have a single treatise, which will 
give a connected view of the leading evidences of the dis- 
tinctions in the Divine Nature, appears to be an object of 
great importance. Whether any thing has been done in this 
volume to effect this object, it is submitted to a candid 
public. 

The author is aware that in some points he differs from 
most Trinitarian writers; but the difference is of such a 
nature that it is, in his opinion, an additional weight in their 
scale of evidence. 

In writing upon a subject, which has been discussed by 
a thousand hands, and in almost as many ways, it is impos- 
sible to avoid crossing the tracks of many; and in attempt- 
ing to establish and defend what is supposed to be truth, it 
is sometimes necessary to notice and refute opinions, which 
militate against it. In the following treatise it has been 
designed to avoid, as much as possible, a controversial method 



IV PREFACE. 

of discussion; and if the arguments and manner used do not 
carry conviction to the minds of any of different sentiments, 
it is hoped that they will not excite asperity. 

It is the object of the author to prove from the Sacred 
Scriptures a threefold distinction in the Divine Nature, reveal- 
ed by the names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He has 
not attempted to shew how these things can be; but merely 
to shew that these things are revealed. Though the Divine 
Plurality, like the Divine Existence, is incomprehensible by 
finite minds; yet there is nothing in it, which any one can 
say is more contradictory, or inconsistent, than the distinc- 
tions in human nature. 

The term person, as it is often applied to the Father, Son, 
and Spirit, and the expression, three persons in the Godhead, 
have been cautiously avoided, unless they have occurred in 
quotations. This language is offensive to many, because it 
conveys to their minds (though not intended by those, who 
use it) an idea of separation in the Divine Nature, so that 
the Father, Son, and Spirit, instead of being one, appear to 
them to be three Gods. There is no inconvenience in avoid- 
ing this phraseology, and it is abundantly sufficient to prove 
that each is divine, without attempting to prove that each 
distinctly is God. 

It has not been attempted to prove, nor has it been taken 
for granted, that the Humanit)^ and Divinity of Jesus Christ 
constitute either one, or more persons. He is "one Lord." 
It appears to be inexpedient to predicate that of him, which 
the Scriptures do not predicate, and which unnecessarily 
excites opposition to the doctrine of his divinity. If the 
term Person, be applieiFto him in both natures, it is certain 
that its signification is different from what it is in any other 
application. It ought to be considered that the intimate con- 
nexion of his divinity and humanity, does not destroy their 
essential distinction. 

The essay on the Atonement is brief; but enough is said 
to shew its connexion with the divinity of Christ, and the 
view given of its matter, will, it is believed, help to re- 



PREFACE. V 

move the most formidable objections, which are brought 
against it. 

Much has been written, and some has been very ably writ- 
ten on the Sonship of Jesus Christ. It does not appear to 
be necessary to prove that his relationship to the Father, 
which is expressed by the relative term Son, was produced 
either in eternity, or in time. If it were ever produced, 
there was a period in duration, in which it did not exist; and 
when it eame into existence, a change in the Divine Nature 
must have taken place. Let it be admitted that the three 
distinctions in the Divine Nature always existed; and that 
they have been revealed by the names of Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit; let the attention be fixed exclusively on the 
Divine Nature, not on its official capacities, nor on its union 
with humanity, and it appears that all debate on the subject 
would terminate. 

In the essay on the Authority of Jesus Christ, it is shewn 
that there is an essential difference between power and au- 
thority; and this distinction, which is warranted by the 
original Greek, is considered a refutation of the opinion of 
those, who maintain that power was imparted by the Father 
to the Son. 

The view of the Mediatorial Office of the Savior, removes, 
it is believed, some objections, which are brought against 
the Trinitarian scheme. 

The Opinions of the Christian Fathers, are taken from 
Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, and from Milner's History 
of the Church of Christ. It is unnecessary to make any 
prefatory remarks on the other numbers of the work. The 
reader will easily discover their design and weight. 

It may appear to many to be entirely superfluous to add 
another publication to the many, which have already been 
made upon this. subject. But it ought to be considered that 
as long as this doctrine is assailed by its enemies, it must be 
defended by its friends; and that the latter must be as inde- 
fatigable and persevering in their efforts as the former. The 
same arguments, presented in different points of view, and 



VI PREFACE. 

variously arranged and combined, will produce different 
effects; and when others, if sound, are added, they give im- 
pulse to those, which have gone before. At the present 
juncture, when opposition is powerful and active, it does 
not become the soldiers of the cross merely to stand on 
the ground, which their fathers valiantly defended, and 
use only their arms, and their method of warfare; they 
must keep pace with the progress of their opponents; 
search out all their varied modes of attack; and learn from 
the skill of the enemy how to repel their assaults. They 
must open the Magazine of divine truth; take arms from 
every apartment; and when, with a helmet, or a shield, or 
a buckler, or a sword, severally, they cannot prevail, let 
them take the whole armor of God, and they will bear down 
all opposition. To drop the figure, when evidences of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, drawn from one, or a few sources, 
are resisted, let every source of evidence be opened; let 
every argument be brought to its place; let the whole be 
marshalled, and they will not, they cannot, be ineffectual. 
Like the Grecian phalanx, they will be not only impenetra- 
ble; but they will break through the line of opposition. 

The following work is now committed to an intelligent 
and candid public, and commended to the blessing of Him, 
whose honor and cause it is designed to vindicate. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

The existence of God, - 9 

The Unity of God, - - - - - 16 

Plurality in the Divine Nature, ... 25 

On the Father, - - - - 39 

In what sense Christ is the Son of God, - - 46 

Divine names given to Christ, - - - 82 

Divine attributes ascribed to Christ, - - - 95 

Christ the Author of Creation, - - - 109 

Christ possesses divine authority, - - - 119 

Divine honors given to the Son of God, - - 135 
Christ's raising the dead and judging the world, are 

evidences of his divinity, - - - 151 

On the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ, - 160 
Christ's divinity argued from the place he holds in our 

system of religion, and in believers' hearts, - 168 

Christ the Author of salvation, - - - 180 

On the Mediatorial office of Jesus Christ, - 1 87 

Christ the Angel of the Covenant, - - 197 
The opinions of the ancient Jews respecting the Son of 

God, 218 



Vlll CONTENTS. 



FAGE 



The opinions of the Christian Fathers respecting Jesus 

Christ, 227 

On the Atonement of Christ, 249 

On the Humanity of Christ, - - - 271 

A summary View of the evidences of the divinity of 

Jesus Christ, .... - 282 
On the Distinction and Divinity of the Holy Spirit, 300 
The connexion of Divine Plurality with other doc- 
trines of the Sacred Scriptures, - - 329 



TREATISE. 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 



The divine existence is an interesting subject of con- 
templation. It concerns every intelligent creature to 
know from whom he has derived his being; and to 
whom he is responsible. It is important to know 
whether nature and her laws are self-existent and in- 
dependent, or derived their existence and support 
from a Creator. It is important to know whether 
events occur under the capricious control of chance; or 
under the established laws of an infinitely wise Sove- 
reign. To form correct sentiments on these points, it 
is necessary to admit, or establish by a process of ar- 
gumentation, the existence of God. This first princi- 
ple of religion is established in the volume of nature, 
and in the volume of inspiration. It has been demon- 
strated and defended by champions of Divinity in 
every age. But the subject has not lost any of its im- 
portance by length of time; nor has it been exhaust- 
ed by the most able discussion. The learning and 
genius of every future age will find full scope in con- 
templating, and discussing this interesting, this infinite 
subject. 

2 



10 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

A variety of arguments offer their assistance in 
proof of the existence of God. The inanimate, and 
brutal creation, and our own existence are evidences 
of an independent first Cause. "The invisible things 
of him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even his eternal power and Godhead." In every 
part of the natural world, there is a continual succes- 
sion of changes. The face of the earth assumes, at 
every revolving season, a new aspect. One growth of 
the vegetable kingdom comes forward, matures, de- 
clines, dies, putrifies, and gives nourishment to a suc- 
ceeding crop. Of the brutal creation individuals are 
continually perishing; and others take their place. In 
the rational world one generation passeth away and 
another taketh its place. This mutation among the 
different orders of beings proves that they are not 
self-existent; that they are not eternal; and proves, of 
course, that they derived their existence from a Crea- 
tor. Because, what is changeable is subject to dissolu- 
tion and extinction. What is subject to fall into non- 
existence might, without contradiction or absurdity in 
the supposition, have been in that state. It follows, con- 
sequently, that all things, which are mutable may have 
had a- beginning, and an author of their existence. As 
substances, which are changeable in their nature are 
not self-existent, it follows that they must have had 
an origin, and a Creator. 

Between the different parts of the natural world 
there is a mutual connexion and dependence. The 
different particles of matter, which compose this 
globe, are united with, and rest upon each other. 
The vegetable kingdom springs from the earth, and 
is supported by the elements. The irrational and the 
rational world derive their origin from a parental 
stock; and are supported by the productions of the 
earth. A series of connected links of dependencies 
cannot make an independent chain of beings. De- 
pendence may be traced from one thing to another; 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 11 

from the smallest particle of matter up to the great- 
est object, which falls within the compass of human 
sight; and the question will arise, on what does this 
depend? Rise as high on this ascending series as im- 
agination can soar, and the same question will return, 
till we fix on that Being, who is uncreated, eternal, and 
self-existent. This is the central point, from which 
every thing proceeds; to which every thing gravitates, 
and by which every thing is sustained. 

In the natural world there are evident marks of de- 
sign, of wise design. There is a just proportion be- 
tween the different parts of creation. The mountains 
are weighed in scales and the hills in a balance. So 
exactly equipoised, are the spheres, which compose 
our system, that they perform their rotations, and 
revolutions in stated times. This curiously organized 
machine was not fitted up merely to make a display 
of mechanical skill. It is calculated to answer the 
most valuable purposes. There is a happy subservi- 
ency between the different parts of the system. The 
inanimate part of the world affords support to the 
brutal creation; and both afford support and enjoyment 
for mankind. The earth is covered with a great vari- 
ety of the richest productions; the heavens are spread 
out like a curtain; and ornamented with shining and 
useful orbs. The elements are combined to sustain 
the life, and promote the enjoyment of all classes of 
creatures, from the smallest insect to the lord of this 
lower world. It is impossible to account for this just 
proportion, this mutual subserviency of different parts; 
and this wise design in every part, unless we trace 
them all to an infinitely wise Creator and Governor. 
When we see a machine of curious construction, and 
calculated for some valuable purpose, we never sup- 
pose that it derived its origin from a casual combina- 
tion of parts. But we trace it to mechanical skill and 
design. With equal propriety we may trace the 
great machine of the universe to the incomparable 
skill, and benevolent design of a divine Artist. 



12 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

The occurrence of events, which cannot be con- 
trolled by human power, and the accomplishment of 
ends by means directly contrary to those, which hu- 
man wisdom employs, are an argument in favor of the 
existence of God. The rise of vapor, the formation 
of clouds, the fall of rain, the artillery of the skies, the 
succession of day and night, the rotation of the sea- 
sons, the rise, progress, and decline of the vegetable 
kingdom, manifest a superhuman power. Human 
wisdom is often employed to effectuate some design. 
All the energies of the mind are called into operation 
for the invention of means to ensure success. Exer- 
tion is so employed and a train of events is so ar- 
ranged, that not a doubt of success obscures the pros- 
pect. But it frequently happens that the wisdom of 
the wise is brought to nought; that events take a 
retrograde course; and the most sanguine expecta- 
tions are blasted. As if nature had changed her laws, 
the most promising circumstances become adverse; 
and the design, which was almost accomplished, 
proves abortive. On the other hand, when adverse 
events take place in rapid succession; when nothing 
but the severest trials appear in prospect; and it is 
beyond human power to turn the current of events, 
something unforeseen takes place, stays the progress 
of adversity, and discloses delightful prospects. His- 
tory, both sacred and profane, give abundant evidence 
of the general government and special interposition of 
a Being, infinitely more powerful and wise, than the 
most exalted creature. 

The general sentiment of mankind is in favor of the 
existence of God. It is probable that every nation 
and tribe on earth believe the existence of a supreme 
Being. However remote from each other, and how- 
ever destitute of intercourse with the rest of the 
world, they all appear to coincide in this one senti- 
ment, — there is a God. The Creator has not left 
himself without witness. He originally impressed his 
image upon humanity. When this moral likeness was 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 13 

effaced, a fearful belief of his existence still remained. 
This sentiment must have been generally engraven 
upon the human mind; or irresistible evidence from 
the works of nature must have been communicated to 
the senses. Those, who have traced the works of na- 
ture; viewed her operations; and studied her laws, 
have inferred that they depend on a first Cause. 
The untutored tribes of the wilderness, without any 
regular process of argumentation, have drawn the 
same conclusion. The learned and the barbarian 
have traced the footsteps of the Deity on earth; and 
have read his name in the firmament written with let- 
ters of light. 

Further, mankind have always felt a dependence 
on some remote cause; they have felt a consciousness 
of responsibility; and they have always looked to 
some being as the object of their greatest fears, or of 
their greatest hopes. A consciousness of right and 
wrong is inherent in the human mind. The Gentiles 
had this law written in their hearts, their conscience 
also bearing witness. As the instinct of brutes ena- 
bles them to distinguish between salubrious and nox- 
ious food, and instigates them to self-defence, or to 
flee from danger; so a moral sense in man distinguish- 
es between good and evil; and would persuade him 
to contend against spiritual enemies, or escape from 
them. This moral sense dwells not on abstract prin- 
ciples, but extends its views to that Being who is the 
Standard of moral excellence, the supreme Arbiter 
of moral actions, the Disposer of retributions. 

Some have argued against nature, against conscious- 
ness, against reason, against the senses; and they have 
concluded that there is no God. On. the boundless 
regions of chance they find the origin, the support 
and control of every thing. According to their own 
principles, it was by chance they formed this senti- 
ment; by chance they may change it; and if they 
should fall into the belief of a God, they will find it to 
be not an act of chance, but a solemn reality. These 



14 THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

aberrations from the great mass of mankind prove 
that there are established laws, from which they devia- 
ted; and they prove that there may be monsters no 
less in the intellectual, than in the brutal world. The 
general sentiment of mankind furnishes abundant 
proof that there is a God; and that he has given evi- 
dence of his existence. 

The sacred scriptures not only declare that there is 
a God, but they are themselves an evidence of his 
existence. In every production we look for an ade- 
quate cause. What is not superior to human power 
may be attributed to that power. But what far ex- 
ceeds human exertion must be traced to a higher 
cause. That system of religion, recorded in the Bible, 
infinitely exceeds any human production. The inge- 
nuity of man has often been tried to form a system of 
religion; but their best productions have betrayed 
the weakness, or baseness of their authors. But the 
christian system displays a depth of wisdom, to which 
human ingenuity can never attain, and which it can 
never fathom. Its morality is unblemished. Its pie- 
ty is pure and fervent. Its exhibitions of the Deity 
are indescribably sublime. Its method of salvation 
embraces, at once, the most striking displays of wis- 
dom, power, and goodness. Its retributions are ad- 
mirably calculated to animate the hopes and rouse 
the fears of the human soul. The more its parts are 
examined and compared, the more visible will be 
their harmony. The more minutely it is investigated, 
the more clearly will its perfection appear. The 
deeper researches are made into this system, the 
more amazing will appear its length and breadth, its 
height and depth. When human wisdom has gone 
to its utmost extent, it can only stand on the borders 
of this divine system; admire its amazing dimensions; 
and exclaim, "O the depth of the riches, both of the 
wisdom and knowledge of God!" 

In the formation of substance out of nothing, and i;i 
the support of the universe are the highest conceivable 



THE EXISTENCE OP GOP. 15 

displays of power. Almighty power alone could 
create and support the world. The organization of the 
universe; its regulations; the correspondence and sub- 
serviency of its various parts; the control of events, 
by which important ends are attained by indirect 
means, manifest a wisdom unlimited in degree, and 
in its operation. The abundant means of support, 
convenience and delight, which are bestowed on man- 
kind; the connexion of the highest happiness with 
duty; the means, which are employed to repair the 
ruins of human nature; the sacrifice which was made 
for rebellious creatures, and the provision, which is 
made for their future enjoyment, are the most striking 
displays of benevolence and goodness. Nothing but 
mercy and love, which knew no bounds, could have 
made such communications to this ungrateful, this re- 
bellious world. The Being, in whom these infinite 
perfections dwell, is the Creator, the Governor and 
Savior of the world. He is God. 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 



The exisfence of God is the foundation of religion. 
He is the Author of all other beings. He supports 
all the works of creation. His will is the law of his 
creatures. His law is not established by an arbitrary 
decree; but it is founded on those principles of moral 
fitness, which are coincident with the relationship of 
beings; and which are immutable. To do justly, and 
to love mercy, and to walk humbly, did not become 
duties because they were required; but they were re- 
quired because they were duties. Had there been no 
God, there would have been no beings; no relation- 
ship between beings; no moral fitness connected with 
such relationship. But as there is a God, and he is 
the Author of all creatures, he is the foundation of 
the connexion subsisting between beings; he is the 
foundation of the principles of moral right which are 
inseparable from such connexion. Agreeably to the 
nature of his creatures, and agreeably to his own holy 
nature, he formed a system of religion. He estab- 
lished in human nature a perceptibility of the divine 
Existence; and implanted in the soul a sense of moral 
obligation. 

Mankind are conscious of responsibility. They 
perceive that they did not originate themselves; their 
possessions; their privileges; their enjoyments. They 
perceive that the Being, who made these communi- 
cations, has a just claim on them; and that they are 
under a correspondent obligation. This general sen- 



THE tJNITY OF GOD. 17 

timent of responsibility was impressed upon the mind 
by the Creator; and proves that he is not only the 
Author of a system of religion; but proves that he is 
the Author of religious sentiment in the heart. 

The opinions which men form of God, give a deci- 
sive character to their religious system. If they form 
correct ideas of his nature, character, government and 
offices, they form, generally, correct ideas of the 
whole system of religion. If they have incorrect ideas 
of the Deity, they are generally defective in their re- 
ligious sentiments. If they believe that he is the only 
living and true God, they believe that he alone is enti- 
tled to religious homage. If they have exalted ideas 
of the divine nature, they have humiliating concep- 
tions of humanity. If they believe divine sovereignty, 
they believe human dependence. If they believe 
that God is the only Savior, they trust only in him. 
On the other hand, if they believe there is a multi- 
plicity of deities, they divide their religious homage 
among them. They practise idolatry. If they be- 
lieve that God does not notice the affairs of mortals, 
they do not venerate the divine law; their hopes and 
fears are not excited by the promise, or threatening 
of retribution. The Heathen have generally, if not 
universally, believed the existence of a multiplicity of 
gods. They have ascribed to them various natures 
and characters; and they have varied their worship 
and service according to the ideas they had formed 
of their respective natures. To one they have offer- 
ed the fruits of the earth. To another they have 
made presentations of indecency. To another they 
have offered human sacrifices; varying their offerings 
according to the supposed nature and pleasure of 
their deities. 

Those, who believe Christianity is a divine revela- 
tion, form various ideas of God. This variety of sen- 
timent upon this fundamental article of religion affects 
their creed through the whole system. The guilt of 
sin is measured by the dignity and holiness of that 
3 



18 THE UNITY OF GOD. 

Being, against whom it is committed. The value of 
the atonement is estimated not only by the evil of sin; 
but by the excellence and capacity of him, who made 
the sacrifice. The ideas formed of future reward 
and punishment correspond with the sentiments en- 
tertained of the Deity. Trace all human creeds, and 
it will be found that all their features take their 
peculiarities from the belief of the first article of 
religion. 

It is of the highest importance, therefore, to form 
correct ideas of God. It is not expected that finite 
minds can form adequate conceptions of the divine 
nature; or of the infinitude of his attributes. But it is 
necessary to believe there is such a nature possessing 
such attributes. The deity is the basis of religion; 
and the opinion formed of him is the chief corner 
stone in a believer's creed. 

In the formation of every argument it is necessary 
to lay down correct premises; because on them the 
conclusion depends. In every science it is necessary 
to have a knowledge of its first principles. These are 
the basis of the whole system. In the science of 
Theology, as in all other sciences, there are funda- 
mental truths, which must be admitted or proved, be- 
fore inquiries can be prosecuted with success. The 
most important of these, and which claims the first 
attention, is, the unity of God. 

1. The first argument, which offers itself in proof 
of this truth, is, there appears to be no need of more 
than one God. In treating subjects philosophically it 
is correct to admit no more causes, than are necessa- 
ry to account for the effects produced. One Being 
of almighty power is sufficient to create the world. 
One Being of infinite wisdom is sufficient to organize 
it, and form a constitution for its government. One 
Being of infinite goodness is competent to the admin- 
istration of its laws. The same Being, who created, 
organized and supports one world, can multiply them 
to any extent he pleases. It is no harder to conceive 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 19 

of infinite attributes residing in one Being, than to con- 
ceive of them residing in many beings. As all the ef- 
fects, which are visible, or fall within the compass of 
human apprehension, may be traced to one Cause, 
possessing infinite perfections, there is no necessity of 
inferring more than one. 

2. The unity of God is argued from the harmony 
and mutual subserviency of different parts of the 
world; and from the uniformity of its government. 
There is a just proportion between the various parts 
of the world. The elements are so adjusted, that 
one does not prevail against another. The globe is 
wisely balanced with earth and water. The spheres, 
which compose this system, are so exactly propor- 
tioned as to size and distance, that they perform their 
revolutions with the greatest precision. There is a 
remarkable correspondence and subserviency between 
the different parts of the world; between different 
classes of animals: and between the brutal and the in- 
telligent creation. The face of the earth is agreeably 
and usefully variegated with hills and vallies. There 
is a happy subserviency between the atmosphere, 
earth, and water. The different parts of this system 
so correspond that they are mutually beneficial. The 
sun enlightens and warms the earth. The moon and 
the host of heaven, not only adorn the canopy of the 
skies, but they shed their milder rays. The regular 
succession of day and night promotes the growth of 
the vegetable kingdom; and affords a pleasing and 
refreshing variety to human nature. The rotation of 
the seasons is wisely calculated to bring forward and 
mature the productions of the earth, and to restore 
its wasted strength. 

The vegetable world affords support to a great part 
of the animal kingdom. Every class of animals finds 
subsistence in its natural situation. Different species 
of animals are mutually useful. Some afford support 
to others. If the Author of nature had paused here; 
and had gone no further, his work might have ap- 



20 THE UNJTT OF GOD. 

peared marvellously great, but he would have mani- 
fested no wise, nor important design. The vast ap- 
paratus of the natural world is calculated and appears 
to be designed ultimately for the use and enjoyment 
of man. The vegetable and animal part of the world 
afford their productions for his service,, convenience 
and delight. 

There is a uniformity of government in the natural 
world. The herb yieldeth seed after its kind. Ev- 
ery class of animals preserve their similarity of ap- 
pearance, nature and habits. They also retain dis- 
tinguishing peculiarities. Seed time and harvest, 
summer and winter, heat and cold, are established by 
a perpetual decree. If, from year to year, there be 
some difference in the time of productions, and some 
slight variations from the ordinary course of events, 
it does not militate against the uniformity of divine 
government; but it only proves that the world is gov- 
erned by general laws. In all the works of nature, 
and in those laws which regulate the world, there 
appears to be only one design, the manifestation of 
divine excellence in promoting the happiness of hu- 
man nature. 

Had there been two artists engaged in creating and 
organizing the world, it could not be expected there 
would be a perfect correspondence and subserviency 
of various parts. It could not be expected there 
would be a unity of design running through the whole 
system. It is not probable that two separate powers 
would perfectly harmonize in any one method of 
government. They would, undoubtedly have their 
favorite plans; and pursue their favorite courses. Con- 
sequently there would not be harmony between the 
different parts of the world; nor uniformity in the 
effects of their administration. Jealousy might rise 
between these rival sovereigns, and instead of uniting 
to promote harmony, uniformity and tranquillity 
through the system, they might throw the whole into 
commotion, and produce the greatest disorder. They 



THE UNITY OP G01>. 21 

might forget the interest of their subjects, and at- 
tempt to establish their individual superiority. If 
the two artists and sovereigns were of one design, and 
possessed equal perfections, they consequently would 
possess an infinitude of attributes. They being dis- 
tinct and separate beings, each would possess one half 
of this infinitude. This supposes that infinite power, 
wisdom and goodness are individually capable of di- 
vision, and separation; that they are made up of parts; 
and that they may be formed by a progressive series 
of finite qualities. If these two possess the same kind 
of nature; are united in design, and in operation, and 
constitute only one infinitude, they would not be two 
distinct and separate existences, but they would be lit- 
erally one nature. 

3. There is abundant evidence that there is one 
God, eternal, self-existent and independent. He exists 
of necessity; that is, it is impossible that he never 
should have existed; and it is impossible that he 
should cease to exist. There is a primary power in 
the universe. It is impossible that this power should 
have created itself; and it is equally impossible that it 
should destroy itself; for this would suppose a power 
superior to the highest power. These things cannot 
be predicated of more than one power. There can 
be only one power necessarily existing. If an equal 
power be supposed to exist, it must depend on the 
will and pleasure of the first power for liberty of 
the least operation. If equals cannot destroy equals, 
they can counteract and neutralize each other. Con- 
sequently there cannot be two separate independen- 
cies; two separate self-existencies, nor two separate 
eternals. 

It is equally absurd to suppose there are inferior 
divinities. A divinity has a divine nature and divine 
attributes. What is divine is not circumscribed; and 
consequently is infinite. What is infinite is not capa- 
ble of degrees of comparison. Consequently there 
cannot be superior and inferior divinities. If a 



22 THE UNITY OF GOD. 

deity be supposed, which is inferior to the supreme 
God, he is inferior in nature and attributes. Dura- 
tion, which is inferior to eternity, is temporal. Power 
and wisdom which are inferior to infinity, are finite. 
A temporal finite being is a creature, consequently he 
is not truly a deity. 

The Heathen admit a multiplicity of gods. But 
they esteem one superior to the rest. They vary 
their religious honors in quality and degree according 
to the supposed excellence of their respective deities. 
It is not doubted that the Creator can and does dep- 
utize his creatures to act with a limited authority. 
He has constituted man lord of this lower world. 
But this does not vest him with a claim to divine hon- 
ors. The prince of the power of the air has author- 
ity to work in the children of disobedience. But this 
prerogative does not entitle him to divine worship. 
The inferior gods of the Heathen, whether they be 
works of their own hands, objects of nature, or crea- 
tures of their imaginations, bear no comparison with 
real Divinity; and they are not entitled to divine hon- 
ors. In view of the one God they are a vanity 
and a lie. 

Mankind, ever since the apostasy, have been in- 
clined to make lords many and gods many; and to 
practise idolatry. Even those, who enjoyed some 
rays of revealed light, loved darkness rather than 
light; and in the shades of nature they fancied simil- 
itudes of the Deity; or with an artist's skill they con- 
trived forms, which called forth their devotional feel- 
ings. One great object of divine revelation was to 
correct the world of this error, and lead them to the 
knowledge of the only living and true God. So im- 
portant was this subject that the first command of the 
decalogue was directed to this very point; "Thoushalt 
have no other gods before me." God has often declared 
in his word that there is no other god. "Unto thee it 
was shewed that thou mightest know that the Lord he 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 23 

is God, there is none else besides him." Solomon, in 
his address to the people after his consecrating prayer 
in the temple, uses almost the same language: "that 
all the people of the earth may know that the Lord 
is God; and that there is none else." Similar lan- 
guage is repeatedly used in the Old Testament. 
Christ, who bore testimony to the truth, taught the 
same doctrine, the unity of God. His language is, 
There is but one good, that is God. In the language 
of the Old Testament, he said, "The Lord our God is 
one Lord." Again he said, This is life eternal, that 
they might know thee, the only true God. In all his 
devotions he addressed but one God. 

4. The coincidence of the various parts of the 
sacred scriptures is a strong argument in favor of the 
unity of their Author. This volume was written by 
many hands; at distant periods; and at places remote 
from each other. Had the objects of the inspired 
writers been different, or had they been under the 
guidance of different spirits, a striking contrariety 
would have appeared in their writings. But, as their 
object is evidently the same, as there is a remarkable 
coincidence in their relation of the same things, as there 
is a perfect agreement between the prophetic writ- 
ings and the history of subsequent events, there is 
the strongest evidence that their authors were under 
the direction of one and the same Spirit. 

Some parts of the sacred scriptures appear, at first 
view, to be inconsistent; and other parts appear to be 
dark. But when they are investigated, they appear 
consistent, and the religion of the Old Testament was 
remarkably well calculated for the Jewish nation till 
the advent of the Messiah. A knowledge of the 
ancient customs of the Jews, a knowledge of the idola- 
tries of neighboring nations bring to view excellen- 
ces of the Jewish religion, which are not discovered 
by a superficial observer. Those parts of God's word, 
which seem to militate against each other, are found 



24 THE UNITY OP GOD. 

to be reconcilable and harmonious. Those seeming 
blemishes, which appear on the pages of divine inspi- 
ration are only dark spots on the vision of the human 
mind. When the understanding is purged from 
moral darkness and corruptness, it will discover the 
perfections of our holy religion; the coincidence of its 
parts; the unity of its design, and the unity of its 
Author. i 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 



After the apostasy mankind were exceedingly 
prone to idolatry. The heathen, in every age, have 
paid their devotions to a variety of deities. Even 
the Hebrews, who were enlightened by divine revela- 
tion, and were taught the existence of only one God, 
often departed from this knowledge, and ascribed 
divine honors to objects of nature, and to works of men's 
hands. When God communicated to the world a sys- 
tem of religion, it might well be expected he would 
guard the human mind against this error; that he 
would distinguish himself from heathen gods; that he 
would communicate nothing which would give the 
least countenance to a multiplicity of deities, or to 
idolatry. When God wrote the moral law on tables 
of stone, he commanded first, that they should have 
no other gods before him. The distinguishing char- 
acteristic of Israel was, that they worshipped one 
God. Moses, who was under divine influence, and 
wrote agreeably to the pattern shewn him by the 
divine Being, guarded the doctrine of the divine unity 
with the greatest care, lest Israel should blend with 
surrounding nations; fall into idolatry; and lose the 
knowledge of the true God. His language is, "Hear, 
O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with all thy might." That 
these words might not depart from their minds, he 
required them to bind them upon their hands; and 
4 



26 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

that they should be as frontlets between their eyes. 
The other prophets adopted similar language. Christ 
supported the same sentiment, and the apostles copied 
his example. 

Notwithstanding the unity of God is a prominent 
doctrine in the Scriptures; yet both the Old and New 
Testament contain many terms and phrases, which 
evidently convey an idea of plurality in the divine 
nature. The original word in the Old Testament, for 
the name God, is used in the plural number. "In the 
beginning God created the heaven and the earth." 
This is the first time the divine name is used in the 
Bible; and it is used in the plural number, connected 
with a singular verb. When God was about to form 
man, he said, "Let tis make man in our image, after 
our likeness." After the apostasy of our first parents, 
"The Lord God said, behold the man is become as 
one of us, to know good and evil." When God look- 
ed down from heaven and beheld the tower, which 
the children of men builded, he said, "Go to, let ws 
go down and there confound their language." God 
speaking by the mouth of his prophet inquires, "Whom 
shall I send? Who will go for us?" Other passages 
contain the name of God in the plural number. 

God is jealous for the honor of his name. He will 
not give his glory to another. He will have no other 
gods before him. He has ever manifested the great- 
est abhorrence of idolatry. Why then did God re- 
veal himself by a name of the plural number, when 
he knew that the heathen, and even his peculiar peo- 
ple were exceedingly prone to idolatry; and would 
greedily catch at every circumstance, which appeared 
to countenance their favorite worship? Why was the 
doctrine of one God guarded with such precision and 
circumspection; and the name of God expressed in 
the plural number, as if there were gods many? His 
name was first communicated in the plural number; 
and lest men should, from this circumstance, infer a 
multiplicity of gods, it was expressly declared that 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 27 

the Lord God was' one Lord; and that they should 
have no other gods. Moses was undoubtedly aware 
what use the people would make of the plurality con- 
tained in the divine name; and it is not probable he 
would have used this term excepting under the sanc- 
tion of divine authority. 

Some have attempted to explain away -the meaning 
of the plurality in the divine name by considering it 
an imitation of the royal style. But there is no evi- 
dence that kings applied to themselves the plural 
number in the days of Moses. We find no instance, 
in the sacred scriptures, of this royal mode of expres- 
sion till about a thousand years after Moses wrote 
his history. Artaxerxes, king of Persia, in answer to 
a letter sent to him by his chancellor, scribe and the 
rest of their companions, says, "The letter which ye 
sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me." Is 
it probable that God borrowed his titles, Majesty, 
most High, Prince, Sovereign, King, from earthly 
potentates? Is it probable that the Author of language 
is indebted to marks of royal honor for the formation 
of his own name, or for the mode of his expression? 
Is it probable that the Creator copied the creature? 
When it is considered how prone people were to deify 
works of art, animals, and departed spirits, it is easy 
to account for the origin of the custom of giving 
divine titles and divine honors to men in the most 
elevated stations. Repeated instances are found in 
history, in which men, who were distinguished for 
heroism, and more distinguished for vain conceit, pre- 
tended to be descendants of the gods; and assumed 
divine prerogatives. It was natural for them, when 
speaking in the first person, to use the plural number 
in imitation of the name of God. It is not a little 
surprising that Christian people should perpetuate 
this heathenish practice. But while it proves the 
power of example, it likewise proves that there is a- 
certain plurality in the divine original, which gave rise 
to this custom. 



28 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

In the New Testament the divine name is used m 
the singular number. When the individuity of divine 
plurality was distinctly revealed, the more obscure 
Hebrew mode of expressing the divine name ceased. 
If the name of God in the New Testament be not 
used in the plural number, a plurality of singulars is 
used, to which divine nature is -ascribed. This gives 
a clearer view of plurality in God than the ancient 
Hebrew form of expression. The New Testament 
was to be circulated among the Jews for the purpose 
of converting them to Christianity. As they believed 
in only one God, no form of speech would unnecessa- 
rily be used by the writers of the Christian religion, 
which would convey to them the idea of a multiplicity 
of deities. As it was also to be circulated among 
heathen, it was necessary to use the greatest care in 
the choice of words, lest encouragement should be 
given to their idolatry. As the forms of speech used 
in the scriptures naturally suggest the idea of more 
gods than one, or of a plurality in the divine nature; 
and as the scriptures declare in the plainest and 
strongest terms that there is but one God, it follows 
that there is a plurality in his nature. 

The Hebrew language is remarkable for its sim- 
plicity, and for its significancy. Proper names, as 
well as the names of a genus and species, are often 
expressive of the nature or properties of the person 
or thing named. Various names are given to the 
Supreme Being; and each name is significant of his 
nature, office, or of some of his attributes. In the 
first verse in the Bible the Hebrew name of God is 
expressive of his power. When he is represented in 
the act of creation there is a striking propriety in 
giving him a name expressing his might. When God 
commissioned Moses to lead Israel out of bondage, he 
made himself known to him by a name signifying inde- 
pendent existence. At other times he revealed him- 
self by names signifying government and excellence. 
From the peculiar significancy of Hebrew names, 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 29 

especially the names of God, an appropriate sense is 
undoubtedly to be given to the divine name, when 
used in the plural number. It is hard to conceive 
what appropriate sense can be extracted from this 
mode of expression, unless it be a certain plurality in 
the divine nature. 

The principal Jewish cabalistic authors, both 
ancient and modern, believed a plurality in the nature 
of God. In one of the most ancient Jewish books, a 
book said to be as ancient as Abraham himself, there 
is this passage. "They are three lights, an ancient 
light, a pure light, and a most pure light; nevertheless 
all these are only one God" In another place, the 
same author, on the same subject says, "And know 
ye, the three high nominations all are united together; 
and never are divided." Another cabalistic author 
observes, "The three highest no eye ever saw, and 
there is not there either separation or division."* 

A passage in Deuteronomy, 6:4, offers its aid in 
support of the sentiment under consideration. In our 
translation it is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God 
is one Lord." A modern Jew,t who was a considera- 
ble critic in the Hebrew language translates this pas- 
sage probably more justly. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, 
our God, the Lord is one." After some explanation of 
this interpretation,the author adds, "Do not mistake me 
and think that there are three Gods of three different 
essences, neither one God without the plurality of 
persons; but yet there is one only God in nature and 
essence, and three distinct persons, all equal in power 
and glory; and coequal and coeval from all eternity." 
The opinion of the Jewish rabbies is of no inconsid- 
erable weight in this argument. They were expert 
in the Hebrew scriptures; and they well understood 
the idiom and the peculiar force of their own lan- 
guage. 

The different works of the Supreme Being, which 
are recorded in the sacred scriptures, form an argu- 

* See Monis. t Wens, 



30 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

ment in favor of a plurality in his nature. It is re- 
corded that God created the world; that he gave a 
law to the human race; that the blood of God was 
shed to purchase his church;* and that those who are 
born again are born of God. Here are three distinct 
kinds of work, the formation and government of man, 
an expiation for sin, and a reparation of ruined human 
nature. God formed and published a law for the 
regulation of human life, and sanctioned it by threat- 
ening punishment for disobedience. The Son of God 
magnified and honored this law by humbling himself 
and bearing the sins of men in his own body on the 
accursed tree. The Spirit of God sanctifies the hu- 
man heart, and restores unto it the divine moral like- 
ness. If there be no kind of plurality, no kind of 
individuality in the divine nature, then the same, who 
threatened, made satisfaction to himself to support 
his own authority; the same, whose authority was 
violated, paid the ransom and gives willingness to 
accept its benefits. Should the supreme ruler of a 
nation adopt this method of government; should he 
suffer the evil consequences incurred by his rebellious 
subjects; and then restore them to his favor, would 
he support his authority? would he manifest disap- 
probation of rebellion? The same difficulties would 
seem to lie against divine government, if there were 
entire singularity in the divine nature. In the whole 
economy of redemption there is abundant evidence 
that there is a ground in the divine nature for mutual 

* Acts 20:28. There are found five different readings of tins passage, beside 
that of the received text, which is <rS 6s«, viz. tS Kug/s, t« Xg<o-<r«, t5 Kug/u 
6«5, tS Bis x.3.1 Kug/a, and t« KugiK k-ju 6s5. Wetstein and Griesbach consider 
the evidence to be in favor of as Kv^in. Wakefield, who was not disposed to 
give his aid to support the doctrine of Christ's divinity, prefers the received 
reading t» 8s3; but he is careful to explain away all the' natural meaning of the 
text. He states that Griesbach's testimony respecting the Ethiopic version is 
"infamously false." "The MSS. in which it" (i. e. t» 6s5) "is found amounts 
to fourteen, and it is quoted or referred to by a great many of the fathers." 
See Middleton on the Greek article, pp. 227 — 232. 

In five exemplaiibus legitur Kug/s x.xi fits. Beza. Illustris sententia de Ueitate 
Christi, et unione duarum naturarum, qua uni tribuitur proprietas alterius. 
Sanguis Jesu est sanguis Dei proprius, vi notvmki ifiotfAwrur. See Poole on 
the place. 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 31 

intercourse; for mutual contract, and for mutual ful- 
filment. One proposes, another accepts. One suppli- 
cates, another hears and answers. One sends, another 
is sent; and the whole is done with unity of design, 
unity of pursuit, and unity of nature. 

In the scheme of redemption there are three dis- 
tinct offices; and they are filled by three of distinct 
and characteristic names. The Father sends the Son ; 
the Son sends the Spirit. The Spirit purifies the 
heart. The Son makes expiation for sin, and inter- 
cession for sinners. The Father accepts what both 
have done. There is no foundation for saying that 
God may be one in all respects, and at the same time 
may fill three separate offices. It appears to be 
inconsistent that God in simple unity should act in 
different offices at one and the same time. It is 
inconsistent that one should negotiate with himself; 
that he should supplicate himself; mediate between 
an offending party and himself; and in a formal manner 
accept his own transactions. To avoid this inconsist- 
ency it appears to be necessary to admit a plurality in 
the Deity. It is equally absurd to account for the 
different offices in the scheme of redemption, fitted by 
different ones of different names, by personifying par- 
ticular attributes of the Deity. It is hard to conceive 
how the faculties of the human mind could hold inter- 
course with each other, and be distinct parties in any 
transaction. It is equally hard to conceive how in- 
dividual divine attributes could separate themselves 
into different parties; negotiate with each other, and 
each fulfil its appointment. Wisdom could form a 
plan of salvation; but, without power, it could not 
carry it into operation. Power could effect any pro- 
posed design, but it could not project the method of 
its accomplishment. Benevolence could effectuate 
nothing without wisdom to devise, and power to ex- 
ecute. A single divine attribute, therefore, cannot 
fill any office in the work of redemption, nor perform 
the duties of such office. This hypothesis, then, does 



32 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

not account for the appearance of plurality in the 
divine nature. 

The opinion and practice of the people in India, 
and in other parts of the East, serve to corroborate 
this sentiment. "The Hindoos believe in one god 
Brahma, the creator of all things; and yet they rep- 
resent him as subsisting in three persons; and they 
worship one or other of these persons throughout 
every part of India. And what proves that they 
hold this doctrine distinctly is, that their most ancient 
representation of the Deity is formed of one body and 
three faces. Nor are these representations confined 
to India alone; but they are to be found in other parts 
of the East."* 

In this quarter of the world God created man, and 
made the first communications of his will. Here 
Christ was born; and nature, men and angels bore 
testimony to his birth. The Hindoo history bears 
some striking features of the history of the gospel. 
In India there have been discovered vernacular writ- 
ings, which contain testimonies of Christ. They 
mention a Prince, who reigned about the time of the 
Christian era. His history relates events, which bear 
a striking resemblance to the advent, birth, miracles, 
death and resurrection of the Savior. In this part of 
the world Christ published the gospel. Here the 
apostles propagated the glad tidings of salvation. But 
before their decease many of the churches of Asia, 
became exceedingly corrupt in sentiment and practice. 
Religion declined by degrees. People fell into idola- 
try. After a lapse of ages the same people, who 
were distinguished for Christian knowledge, became 
grossly ignorant and superstitious; and practised 
idolatry, which was marked with indecency and 
cruelty. But in the midst of their ignorance and idol- 
atrous practice there were found some vestiges of 
Christianity. Some events, which occurred when 
Christ was upon earth stood recorded; and some 

* Buchanan. 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 33 

doctrines of the gospel were strikingly represented. 
Doctrines relating to the true God, they applied to 
their false gods. The doctrine of the atonement they 
used in their idolatry. Whence originated these rays 
of Christianity in this benighted quarter of the world? 
Whence originated among them the doctrine of the 
Trinity and the doctrine of the atonement? These 
were not human inventions. These were undoubtedly 
relics of revealed truth, which had long been pre- 
served amidst the rubbish of heathenish ignorance 
and superstition. These fundamental doctrines of 
Christianity, like the pillars of nature, have remained 
where they were first established. The ignorance, 
the wickedness, the imaginations of men have per- 
verted these doctrines; but they never have destroyed 
them. How did these fundamental principles of 
Christianity find existence; how have they been pre- 
served in the heart of heathenish Asia, if they were 
not planted there by their Author, and supported by 
his power? Let people, who have ever lived under 
the sunshine of the Gospel, and have so refined it, 
that they have robbed it of almost every divine fea- 
ture, go to India, and from the three-faced idol of the 
poor Hindoo, learn the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Plurality in the divine nature is a mystery. Some 
pretend to discover mystery in every part of scripture. 
Others attempt to explain mystery; and consequently 
they explode it. In treating this subject it is neces- 
sary only to shew that the doctrine of divine plurality 
is contained in the scriptures; and that it does not 
contradict the dictates of reason. Mystery signifies 
"something above human intelligence; something aw- 
fully obscure." It is not surprising that the subject 
under consideration should be above human appre- 
hension. It cannot be expected that a finite mind 
can comprehend the infinite Spirit. We do not un- 
derstand the mode of our own existence. We do not 
understand the operations of our own minds. We 
do not understand the union of soul and body; and 
5 



34 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

how one affects the other. It is not within the limits 
of our understandings to know how two distinct sub- 
stances, matter and spirit, constitute unity of person. 
But we know that we have existence, that we have 
mental exercises; that our bodies and souls are united; 
and that they constitute but one person. If we can- 
not comprehend our own existence, it cannot be ex- 
pected that we can comprehend "the degrees or forms 
of the Deity." 

The divine plurality is not a plurality of nature. 
If there were a plurality of divine natures, there 
would be distinct divine beings; there would be a 
multiplicity of deities. It would be a contradiction to 
say that several divine natures make but one divine 
nature; that several Gods make but one God. But 
it is not a contradiction to say the Father is God; the 
Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and these three 
are one. 

The Creator, by the communication of reason made 
a partial revelation of himself. All his other revela- 
tions are coincident with this; or, at least, they do not 
militate against it. In his sacred word he makes 
known truths, which the utmost efforts of reason could 
never discover. But he discloses nothing, which con- 
tradicts the dictates of this power of the mind. In 
the works of nature there is mystery. In ourselves 
there is mystery. It is not surprising then that there 
should be mystery in the mode of the divine existence. 
A Trinity in Unity is this mystery. 

But this is not the only mystery in the divine 
nature. God's eternity is above our comprehension 
While we believe the existence of this attribute, we 
form no adequate idea of it. We believe the self- 
existence of the divine nature. But as we are ac- 
quainted with only a series of dependencies, we have 
no just conception of absolute independence. God 
hears our supplications. But we understand not how 
he perceives the voice of prayer without the organ 
of hearing. He perceives the operations of our 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 35 

minds. But we understand not how a Spirit is ac- 
quainted with the exercises, motives and feelings of 
other spirits. These are mysteries, and they are 
probably as far beyond our reach, as the doctrine of 
Trinity in Unity. 

We have not an adequate idea of the plurality in 
the divine nature. We do not understand that ground 
of distinction in the Deity, by which one addresses 
others of the same nature; and all compose but one 
essence. The scriptures authorize us to believe this 
ground of distinction, and this bond of Union. But 
how this is without division and separation of nature, 
and without confusion of individuality is far beyond 
our deepest research. Omnipresence is an acknowl- 
edged attribute of the Deity. God is in every place. 
In every part of creation he displays the infinitude of 
his attributes; and he does this without division or 
separation of himself. If it be rationally admitted 
that God is in every place, it is not contrary to ration- 
ality that he was in the man Christ Jesus. 

Many, by attempting to explain and illustrate the 
doctrine of divine plurality, have rendered it more ob- 
scure; and have given it the appearance of absurdity. 
Because the divine Being speaks in the three persons, 
I, thou, he; because distinct offices, works and attri- 
butes are attributed to the Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit, it is concluded there is ground in the divine 
nature for distinct personalities. As we have not 
distinct ideas of divine plurality, it is impossible to 
give distinct and appropriate names, which will justly 
designate the individuality. It is probable, however, 
that no term in our language would better mark the 
distinction in the divine nature, than the term person. 
In our English Testament the word person is once 
applied to the Father; and several times it is applied 
to the Son. But in the original they are different 
words, and of different significations. But neither of 
them appears primarily to signify person. The orig- 
inal of the word person, applied to the Father signifies 



36 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

self-existence or distinct substance. When it is 
applied to the Son, it signifies face or presence. 
These instances, therefore, afford no argument for the 
term persons; and as many view the expression, when 
applied to one God, as a contradiction, it is preferable 
to adhere as closely as possible to the language of 
divine inspiration in representing a doctrine so myste- 
rious. 

The greatest care needs to be used in the choice 
of terms to express our ideas of the divine Nature. 
If we have clear ideas of any truth, we can clearly 
communicate them. But when we have confused 
ideas of a doctrine, or no ideas at all, it is in vain to 
attempt to supply the deficiency by any selection of 
words. From the inspired writings we have a dis- 
tinct idea that there is a plurality, a trinity in the 
divine nature. But when we pursue our inquiries 
respecting the mode of this three-fold substance, ideas 
fail and language also fails. 

The words plurality and Trinity are not found in 
the sacred writings. But as the divine name is 
repeatedly used in the plural number; as the appella- 
tions, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are 
given to the' divine Being, it is conceived there is just 
ground for the use of these terms. 

Some have attempted to illustrate this doctrine by 
comparing it with the union of the human body, soul 
and spirit; and likewise by comparing it with the three 
principal faculties of the human mind. These com- 
parisons may go so far, perhaps, as to shew that the 
doctrine is not contradictory or absurd. But they fall 
far short of illustrating the doctrine. The human 
body, soul and spirit have properties peculiar to them- 
selves. What is predicated of one cannot be predicated 
of the others. Neither do these three constitute one 
essence. The understanding, will and affections are 
simple qualities of the mind. They not only sustain 
different offices in the human intellect, but they are 
entirely different. Some suppose there is no need of 



PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 37 

admitting any distinction in the divine nature; that 
he, who is the same in all respects, acts in different 
offices. But the divine law and the nature of the 
atonement do not admit this illustration. 

It is in vain to draw comparisons from the material, 
or from the intelligent world for the explanation of 
the doctrine of divine plurality. There may be some 
'points of contact in the comparison; but there is no 
parallellism between the creature and the Creator. 
"Who in the Heaven can be compared unto the Lord; 
who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto 
the Lord?"* 

* It is worthy of remark, that the same name of plural number, which is ap= 
plied to God, (ainSi*) is also applied to Dagon, the god of the Philistines; 
to Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians; and to Moses. Another plural 
name of God (aijnxy is also applied to individual men. The names of 
some individual things are expressed by nouns of the plural number. But does 
this prove that there is either no plurality in the divine Being, or that there is 
a plurality in human nature, or in particular things? This conclusion would be 
hardly logical. The first name in the Bible given to God is a noun of plural 
number. The same name is frequently given to him in the Old Testament. 
The idolatrous nations, which lived not very remote from the Jews, were un- 
doubtedly acquainted with the name of the God they worshipped. They applied 
the same plural name to individuals of their deities; and when they applied other 
names, they sometimes applied them in the plural number. It was natural for 
them to give a name to their deities as honorable as that, which the Hebrews 
gave to their God. If there was an appropriate significancy in the plural num- 
ber, when applied to the true God, it is not incredible that heathen should use 
the same number in giving names to their idols, designing to equalize them with 
him; as far as names could do it. Nor is it a striking peculiarity of the Hebrew 
language, that a name of masculine termination should be given to a goddess. 
For the Latin Deus and the Greek 6so?, are used to signify both god and god- 
dess. Besides, there were many idols of the same name, which justifies the use 
of the plural number. 

The divine name of plural number was given t© Moses. I have made thee a 
God, ainStf, to Pharaoh. Ex. 7:1. ha, the root of this word, signifies, to 
interpose, intervene, mediate, come or be between, for protection, prevention, 
&c. (Parkh. Lex.) There was great pertinence in giving a name, from this root, 
to Moses; because he interposed, intervened, mediated between the king of 
Egypt and God. As God in plurality interposed in behalf of fallen man for 
protection and prevention; as the name of God, from this reot, was used fre- 
quently, if not generally, in the plural number, there was a propriety in applying 
to Moses this name in the same number. The name was not designed to be sig- 
nificant of the nature of the Hebrew leader, but to express his office and -work. 
A plural name of God is also given to Joseph by his brethren. But reasons 
similar to the foregoing will justify its application. This style is not peculiar to 
the Hebrew language. In the English tongue a similar dialect is used. Some of 
the names of God are applied to men; and the royal style is of plural number. 

Names of plural number, applied to individual things, are not peculiar to the 
Hebrew language; nor do they invalidate the argument drawn from the plurality 
of the divine name. The same usage is known in our own language. Because 
some of our plural names are applied to singular things, it does not follow that 
there is not a peculiar significancy in the royal style. Because some Hebrew 
names of plural number are applied to individual things, it does not follow that 



38 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 

there is not a peculiar significancy in the plural name of God. Besides, those 
Hebrew plurals, applied to singulars, which have been offered to invalidate the 
argument of divine plurality, are of such a complex nature, or of such con- 
nexion, that they appear to contain or imply a plurality. 

In Ps. 45:6, 7, the plural name of God is applied to the Son and to the Father. 
This, instead of proving that there is a plurality in each, serves to confirm the 
opinion that there is such a union between them, that the name of one may be 
applied to the other; and the plural name, embracing the Trinity, may be 
applied to the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; for one implies the other. 

"The ancient idolaters in general called the material heavens, or their rep- 
resentatives QtnSN. And although the heavens are eminently distinguished 
into fire, light, and spirit, and many actions or operations are immediately per- 
formed by one or two of these, yet, as the whole celestial fluid acts jointly, or all 
its three conditions concur in every effect; hence it is that the ancient heathen 
called not only the whole heavens, but any one of its three conditions, denoted 
by a name expressive of some eminent operation it performs, r^nSa. For 
they meant not to deny the joint action of the whole material Trinity, but to 
give it the glory of that particular attribute." Parkh. Lex. p/20. 

rhu signifies "a denouncing of a curse, a curse denounced either upon 
one's self or others, or both, so an oath taken or given." (Parkh. Lex. p. 18.) 
The plural of this word, applied to God, easily suggests the idea of the Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit, entering into an oath, or covenant between themselves, and 
denouncing a curse on those, who continue not in all things which are written in 
the book of the law to do them. Besides, the Son himself was made a curse. 
In this view, the plural noon, ainSN has peculiar significance and perti- 
nence. 



£ 



ON THE FATHER. 



When the doctrine of the Trinity is discussed, little is 
said distinctly respecting the Father. The cause of 
this neglect probably is, that all parties on this sub- 
"ect acknowledge that God is Father; and that the 
ather is God; and discussions respecting the nature 
of the Son imply the existence of the Father. But 
in taking a general view of the divine nature, as it is 
revealed, it is necessary to notice every character 
and office attached to it. The sacred scriptures rep- 
resent the Father as having a distinct name, a distinct 
character, a distinct office. There is no reason that 
this part of the subject should be omitted. 

God claims the relationship of Father to the human 
race. He is the Author of their beings; and on this 
gruond it is proper to call him their Father. The pro- 
phet Malachi saith, "A son honoreth his father, and a 
servant his master; if then I be a Father, where is mine 
honor, saith the Lord of hosts." Again he inquires, 
"Have we not all one Father? hath not one God 
created us?" Christ taught his disciples, saying, "Be 
ye perfect, even as your Father, which is in heaven, 
is perfect." Again he said, "Pray to thy Father, 
which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in 
secret shall reward thee openly." The apostle Paul 
saith, "To us there is but one God, the Father." 
The phrase, "God the Father," is frequently used in 
the New Testament. When the title, Father, is 
applied to God, importing his relationship to the 



40 ON THE FATHER. 

human race, it does not designate distinction in the 
divine nature. Its import is, God in plurality. When 
Christ teaches us to pray, "Our Father, who art in 
heaven," he designs that we should address the one 
only living and true God without the distinction of 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

God is in a more special manner, the Father of 
believers. He claims a nearer and more endearing 
relationship to them. He calls them children; he calls 
them sons. "As marry as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God. Behold what manner of 
love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we 
should be called the sons of God. Beloved, now are 
we the sons of God. Ye have received the spirit of 
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The 
union and affection, which subsist between them, are 
a just ground for giving them the appropriate names 
Father and sons. When God takes to himself the 
name Father in relation to the human race, or to 
believers, it is not designed to mark a distinction in 
his nature; but it conveys the idea of divine nature 
generally. The terms Father and God are frequently 
used as synonymous. 

In all those divine works, which do not involve the 
work of redemption, God in plurality is brought to 
view. But when the work of redemption is exhib- 
ited, then the Trinity distinctly appears. When one 
of the sacred Three is exhibited, performing a certain 
part in the work of salvation, he takes the name of 
Father, not from the relationship, which he bears 
toward the human family; but from the relationship, 
which he bears toward the Son. In the divine 
nature and in the divine works there is perfect order. 
In divine offices there is priority and posteriority. 
By unanimous consent one of the Trinity holds the 
first place. By unanimous consent he holds authority 
over the Son, and over the Spirit. As a father is the 
head of his family, and holds the reins of authority, 
there appears to be propriety in calling Him Father, 



ON THE FATHER. 41 

who holds the fir&t office in the work of redemption. 
The names of each of the Trinity are not of human 
invention. They are revealed. It may reasonably 
be expected that God would reveal himself by name 
or names of appropriate signification; that he would 
adopt language, which was calculated, to convey some 
correct ideas of himself. When one of the Trinity 
calls himself Father, it is presumable that there is 
some analogy between himself and a human father. 
It is not supposable that any figurative language, or 
any representation taken from creatures can convey 
an adequate idea of the divine nature. There is no 
language, there is no representation, which can bring 
the infinitude of the Deity within the limits of finite 
understanding. But language and similitudes drawn 
from things, with which we are acquainted, help us to 
form some conception of the nature, character and 
offices, of the divine Being. 

If one of the Trinity be called Father, in relation 
to Christ, it does not follow that he is his Father in 
the same sense, in which a man is father of his son. 
The scriptures abound with pertinent and forcible 
figures. If there be a striking analogy between the 
two relationships, there is propriety in calling him 
Father. It has been observed that the authority, 
which he holds over Jesus Christ, in the work of 
redemption, renders it proper that he should be called 
Father. If the manner of Christ's coming into the 
world; his introduction into office; his resurrection from 
the dead be reasons, for which he is called Son, the 
same reasons are valid for calling him Father, who 
sent him into the world, introduced him into office, 
and raised him from the dead. Between a father and 
son there is similarity of nature and nearness of rela- 
tionship. Christ is of the same nature with him, who 
sent him. He perfectly harmonizes with him in all 
his designs, and in all his works. "What things soever 
he doth, (i. e. the Father) these also doeth the Son 
likewise." Christ calls God his Father. He expresses 
6 



42 ON THE FATHER. 

their union in the strongest language. "I and my 
Father are one. Believe me that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me." Christ is said to be in the 
bosom of the Father. These expressions designate 
the intimate union, which subsists between them; and 
shew the propriety in calling them by names, which 
express the nearest relationship. 

A father feels a tender affection for his son. God 
expresses his great love for Christ. At his baptism 
he declared, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased. The Father loveth the Son." God's 
love for the world is argued from his sending his only 
begotten Son into the world. If this be an expres- 
sion of great love to the world, it follows that he 
exercised great love toward his Son. The great love 
which God had for Christ is another reason for 
calling himself his Father. 

"A father frequently makes an only son heir of all 
he possesses. He, who sent Christ into the world 
hath appointed him heir of all things. He hath given 
him all authority. He hath given him dominion over 
all things in heaven and on earth. This is an addi- 
tional reason for calling him the Father of Jesus Christ. 
By way of emphasis Christ is called the Son. By the 
same emphatical distinction he is called the Father. 

It is impossible for finite minds to understand the 
union and the relationship, which subsists in the divine 
plurality. The scriptures, by a figure of speech, call 
Christ Son, and by the same figurative mode of 
expression they call him, who sent him, Father. 

It is not necessary to quote texts of scripture and 
use arguments to prove the divinity of the Father. 
For these, who believe there is a God, believe that 
the Father is God. Besides, the scriptures frequently 
use the terms, Father and God, as synonymous. 

In the covenant of redemption, ratified by the 
Father and the Son, it is stipulated, that the Son, in 
consideration for his sacrifice and mediation, "shall see 
of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." The 



ON THE FATHER. 43 

Father promised to him saying, "I will divide him a 
portion with the great; and he shall divide the spoil 
with the strong." The Father promised to give him 
the heathen, (i. e. the nations) for his inheritance, and 
the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; 
that he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and 
from the river unto the ends of the earth. 

From Christ's own words it appears that the Father 
has given him a portion of the human race. In his 
prayer to the Father he saith, "I pray not for the 
world, but for them, which thou hast given me. Holy 
Father, keep through thine own name, those, whom 
thou hast given me. Those, that thou gavest me 1 have 
kept. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast 
given me be with me, where ] am." 

It belonged to the office of the Father to send the 
Son into the world. "God so loved the world that 
he sent his only begotten Son into the world." In this 
was manifested the love of God toward us, because 
that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, 
that we might live through him. Herein is love, not 
that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his 
Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 

The sending of the Holy Spirit is attributed to the 
Father. "How much more shall your heavenly Father 
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. The 
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. 
When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto 
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
proceedeth from the Father. Because ye are sons, 
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 

The Father is the object of Christ's intercession. 
"He made intercession for the transgressors." Who 
maketh intercession for us. We have an advocate 
with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. Christ 
is not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true, but into heaven 



44 ON THE FATHER. 

itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
The intercessions of Christ are prevalent with the 
Father. "Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I 
thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew 
that thou hearest me always." Christ intercedeth 
for those only, who are given him or are sanctified by 
the Spirit; and the Father is always ready to hear 
intercession for such. 

Since the apostasy, the Father has holden 
intercourse with man, and man with the Father 
through the medium of the Son. When the Father 
reveals his will to man; when he confers his blessings, 
either temporal or spiritual, it is by or through the 
Son. When prayers are offered to our heavenly 
Father, they are offered in the name, or through the 
medium of the Son; and they become prevalent only 
by his intercession. 

It was the office of the Father to send the Son 
into the world, to make a propitiation for sin; and to 
reconcile the world unto himself. He is well pleased 
with the righteousness of his Son; and he is well 
pleased with those, who are the objects of his inter- 
cessions. 

It was the office of the Father to give all authority 
to the Son in his mediatorial capacity. When Christ 
has fulfilled the duties of his office as Mediator and 
Redeemer, and has judged the world, then will he 
give up the kingdom to God the Father. Then will 
the Father receive the authority which he had given 
to the Son; and God, without those distinctions, which 
were manifested during the economy of redemption, 
will be all in all. 

The priority of the Father's office in the work of 
redemption is no proof of his superior nature, or that 
he is entitled to higher veneration than the Son or 
Spirit. In every work there is need of methodical 
arrangement. In the great and complex work of 
redemption there is the greatest need of method. 



ON THE FATHER. 45 

Where infinite wisdom operates there is order. If 
the Trinity hold respective offices in order, there is 
first, second, and third office. There is priority and 
posteriority. The dignity of their offices is not 
affected by their number. To human view, a sacrifice 
for sin is as important as the acceptance of the sac- 
rifice; and qualifications to receive the benefit of it 
are as necessary as the sacrifice itself. Thus, 
Father, Son, and Spirit, hold offices equally essential 
U> the work of redemption, and they claim equal love 
and veneration. 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 



Psalm 2:7. Thou art my Son. Jesus Christ is the 
Author of our holy religion. The communications, 
which were made to man after the apostasy, were 
made by him. By his authority holy men of God 
were inspired by the Holy Spirit; and communicated 
the divine will. By him the covenant of grace was 
given to degenerate man; and through his mediation, 
every favor is bestowed upon this fallen world. 
When fulness of time was come he appeared on earth 
in the form of human nature. He made more clear 
and copious displays of the divine will, than had been 
made before. He taught the way which led to 
heaven. He was embraced in the first promise of 
mercy to fallen humanity. He was the principal 
object of ancient prophecy. He was the substance, 
wnich was represented by the types in the Hebrew 
ritual. He was the antitype of the sacrifices, which 
were offered upon the Jewish altar. He is the main 
scope of the gospel. He is the foundation of salva- 
tion. He is the chief corner stone of the church. 

As Jesus Christ holds so important a place in the 
scheme of redemption, it is necessary to form correct 
ideas of his nature, character and office. As he is 
the foundation of Christianity, the sentiments we form 
of him, will affect our whole creed respecting the 
method of salvation. It cannot be expected that the 
superstructure will be better than the basis. If we 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 47 

begin with error, the whole fabric will be erroneous. 
View the Christian world, and it will be found that 
the sentiments they form of Christ give a complexion 
to their whole creed respecting Christianity. The 
greatest care ought, therefore, to be used in forming 
an opinion on this fundamental article of the Christian 
faith. It concerns us to decide whether Jesus Christ 
is simply human; whether he is a composition of 
human and super-angelic nature, or whether he is 
composed of humanity and Divinity. It is important 
to decide whether Christ exhibited characteristic 
marks of divine nature; and whether he sustains the 
office of Mediator, Redeemer and Savior. The im- 
portance of the subject demands a faithful investiga- 
tion. 

When Christ appeared in the world, it was a prom- 
inent inquiry among the Jews whether he was the 
Son of God. The inquiries whether he was the 
Christ, or whether he was the Son of God were of 
the same import. They expected that when the 
promised Messiah appeared, he would appear in the 
character of God's Son. In the Old Testament God 
acknowledges him to be his Son. By his prophet he 
said, "Thou art my Son." Jewish authors admit that 
the term Son in the 2d Psalm is applied to Christ. 
To put the question beyond dispute the apostle Paul 
quotes this short passage, and applies it to Christ. 
When Jesus claimed the title, Son of God, and the 
title, Christ, the Jews considered him claiming the 
same prerogatives. At one time they accused him of 
calling himself Christ. At another time they accused 
him of calling himself the Son of God; and they 
viewed the accusations of the same import. 

Christ once inquired of his disciples what was the 
opinion of people respecting himself. After they 
.had named several opinions, which were entertained 
of him, he inquired of them saying, "Whom say ye 
that I am?" Peter, who was always ready to give 
an answer, said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 



48 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed art thou Simon 
Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
thee; but my Father, which is in heaven." This 
reply proved that Peter had formed right ideas of 
him; and gave him an appropriate name. Jesus 
Christ was predicted by the name, Son. When he 
came into the world he maintained that he was the 
Son of God. When he was on trial before the council, 
the high Priest adjured him by the living God, that 
he should declare whether he was the Christ, the Son 
of God. When the Centurion saw the miracles at 
his crucifixion, he exclaimed, "Surely this was the Son 
of God." The apostles preached the same doctrine. 
After Saul was converted to the Christian faith, he 
"straightway preached Christ in the synagogues, that 
he is the Son of God." Evil spirits acknowledged 
the same sentiment; and gave him the same title. 
The relationship of Christ to the Father expressed 
by the term Son was acknowledged by himself; by 
his apostles; and by primitive Christians. 

Soon after Christ left the world, various opinions 
arose respecting him. Some believed that he was 
wholly divine; that he assumed only the appearance of 
humanity. Some held that a super-angelic nature 
was united with his human nature. Others maintained 
that he was a mere man, furnished with extraordinary 
communications. This variety of sentiment respecting 
Jesus Christ early disturbed and divided the Christian 
Church. The same distinctions, with their various 
modifications, have perpetuated divisions in the Chris- 
tian world. 

The phrase, Son of God, is often applied in the 
scriptures to Jesus Christ. He frequently claims this 
dignity. The Father often calls him his Son; his 
own Son; his dearly beloved Son. Scripture names 
are remarkable for their pertinence; and there is no 
doubt that a peculiar and appropriate sense is to be 
attached to this title. It is important to inquire in 
what sense Christ is the Son of God. 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 49 

This appellation was given to individuals of the 
human race. Adam was called the son of God. 
When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, requiring him to 
let Israel go, he commanded him to say unto Pharaoh, 
"Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son. When God 
forbade David to build an house for his name, he 
declared that Solomon should build him an house; and 
"I will be his Father and he shall be my Son; and I 
will establish his kingdom." Those, who are born of 
the Spirit and have become members of Christ's 
kingdom, are frequently called sons of God. "As many 
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
God. As many as received him, to them gave he 
power to become the sons of God." People are chil- 
dren of God indifferent senses, and in different respects. 
All are his children in this general sense, that he is 
the Author of their existence; and in this sense all 
may call him Father. But those, who are renewed 
in the temper of their minds, and are adopted into his 
family, are, in a more peculiar sense, his children, or 
his sons; and in a more peculiar sense God is their 
Father. 

Christ is not only Son of God, but by way of distinc- 
tion and eminence, he is the Son of God. If those, 
who are born of the Holy Spirit; who bear the divine 
moral likeness, and have become members of God's 
family by adoption, are emphatically sons of God; for 
greater reasons, and in a higher sense is Jesus Christ 
the Son of God. 

Some are of opinion that the sonship of Christ orig- 
inated from his miraculous conception. To Mary the 
angel said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee; 
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; 
therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of 
thee, shall be called the Son of God." It is not doubt- 
ed that this is one reason, for which he was called by 
this name. But it is not the only, nor the principal 
reason for giving him this appellation. Christ was 
called a Son long before his incarnation. The Psalmist 
7 



50 IN" WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOtt. 

speaking the language of the Father to Christ, saith, 
"Thou art my Son." The love of God is represented 
in the highest degree because he sent his Son into the 
world. The love of God is grounded on his not sparing 
his own, his dearly beloved Son; but giving him up 
freely for the sins of the world. If God had not had 
a Son before the advent of the Messiah, he could not 
have sent his Son. Therefore the peculiar manner of 
his introduction into the world did not constitute his 
near relationship to the Father. 

Christ is not a literal Son of the Father. Because 
Christ is repeatedly called Son of God, it does not 
follow that this phrase is to be understood according 
to its literal, or natural meaning. If it should be ad- 
mitted as an established rule for the interpretation 
of the scriptures that words are always to be under- 
stood according to their natural meaning, and according 
to their general acceptation, there would be found some- 
thing more thanmystery in the Bible. If the terms Son of 
God prove that Jesus Christ is literally and properly the 
Son of the most High, then the terms Lamb of God 
would prove that Christ was literally andproperly a lamb; 
and as he was o/*God, it would prove that God possess- 
ed the same nature. The scriptures say, "it repented the 
Lord that he had made man on the earth; The Lord 
repented of the evil, which he thought to do unto his 
people; God repented of the evil that he had said 
that he would do unto them and he did it not." If 
these passages are to be understood according to the 
rule of literal interpretation, or according to the com- 
mon acceptation of words, then God is changeable like 
man; and feels the painful emotions of humanity. God 
is represented in the scriptures as hearing, seeing, 
smelling. If these terms are to be explained by the 
rule just mentioned, then the divine Spirit is invested 
with a body; and possesses corporeal organs. Such 
interpretations prove that the rule is not correct; and 
it proves also that Christ is not literally the Son of 
God, merely because he is called by this name. 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 51 

Christ is not the Son of God by derivation. Crea- 
tion and derivation are words of different import; and 
they require different acts of power. Creation is the 
production of something out of nothing. Derivation 
is the production of something from something already 
existing. Matter was created. The human body 
was derived from this substance. The human race 
have derived their nature ultimately from the parents 
of all living. All the properties of their natures are 
similar to those of their progenitors. If their parents 
had a beginning of existence, if they were dependent 
and were limited in all their faculties, their descend- 
ants are exactly like them in all these particulars. 
The nature they derived is exactly similar to that, 
from which they derived it. A stream is of the same 
nature as its fountain. Every production is of the 
same nature, i. e. possesses the same essential proper- 
ties, as those from which they are produced. In this 
manner derivation applies to almost every thing, which 
falls under our notice. 

If Christ derived his nature from the Father, he 
possesses the same kind of nature, the same essential 
properties, which the Father possesses. If the Father 
be eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite in power, 
knowledge and wisdom, the derived Son must also be 
eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite in power, 
knowledge and wisdom. This derived Being is a 
distinct and separate existence from the Father. As 
he possesses all divine attributes, he is a divine Being. 
As he possesses a nature separate from, and inde- 
pendent of, the Father, he and the Father are two 
distinct gods. As this natural conclusion is false, it 
is presumed that the doctrine of divine derivation is 
not true. 

It is in vain to say. all divine attributes may be 
derived except eternity and self-existence. If the 
Son, by derivation be divine, he possesses divine attri- 
butes. If he possess not divine attributes, he is not 
divine. Take from him any one divine property, and 



52 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

his divinity ceases. Take from him his eternity and 
self-existence, and it is harder to conceive of his 
divinity, than it is to conceive of a plurality in the 
divine nature. It is hard to conceive divine attributes 
blended in the same nature with finite properties. It 
is hard to conceive almighty power in a dependent 
existence; to conceive infinite knowledge, or any other 
quality infinite in its nature, subsisting in a nature, 
which has had a temporary existence. 

When creatures receive existence by derivation, 
they, from whom they are derived, communicate a 
portion of their own substance. They suffer a dimi- 
nution of themselves; and the diminution would 
continue, if they did not receive supplies, from external 
substance. If Christ derived his nature from the 
Father, the Father communicated a part of his own 
nature, a part of his own substance. He would suffer 
a privation of a part of his attributes, a part of his 
nature. There would be a chasm in the divine Spirit, 
which could not be filled. There would be an essen- 
tial defect in the Father. The derived extract would 
be dependent; and the original Source of being would 
be diminished. Of course, the Son would be a 
dependent, and the Father a finite being. 

Divine nature, or divine attributes are not commu- 
nicable. God cannot impart one quality of his mind; 
nor can one divine quality be derived from him. If a 
human or an angelic spirit be produced, it is the effect 
of divine energy; it is not a communication of divine 
qualities. A created mind is similar, in some respects, 
to the divine Mind; but, in degree, it bears no 
comparison. Holiness in the human heart is not a 
derivation of divine holiness; but it is the effect of 
divine operation upon the mind. There is an essential 
difference between originating existence, and com- 
municating that which already exists. 

The divine nature is eternal; and it is necessary in 
its existence. As it had no cause of its existence, 
there is no cause, which can destroy its existence. As 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 53 

it is impossible that it should not exist, it is impossible 
that it should exist otherwise than it does. If its 
attributes are infinite, it is impossible it should exist 
with a diminution or relinquishment of any of its attri- 
butes. It is not derogatory to the Deity, to be 
incapable of change; to be incapable of imperfection. 
Admitting these principles, it is impossible that God 
should communicate his nature or his attributes; and 
it is equally impossible that they should be derived 
from him. Should he communicate almighty power, 
infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge and independence, 
he would become entirely destitute of these attributes. 
Or rather, a transference of divine attributes, (suppos- 
ing it possible) would not destroy them; and being again 
united, they would constitute the same divine Being; 
and of course there would be no communication, nor 
derivation. If it be supposed that Jesus Christ 
derived divine attributes from the Father in only a 
limited degree, the supposition is inconsistent. In the 
first place, divine nature is incapable of division, or 
separation, or of communication of any part of itself. 
In the second place, if a partial communication were 
made, the consequence would be different from that, 
which is contemplated by the supposition. If it were 
possible that Christ derived a finite nature and finite 
attributes from the Father, he would not be divine. 
There is no perceptible difference between finite 
properties and the properties of creatures. Divine 
attributes are infinite; or they are in the highest pos- 
sible degree. Attributes less than these are not divine. 
Should we speak of divine, dependent power; of a 
divine, finite knowledge; of a divine, limited presence; 
of a divine, temporary existence; we should pervert, 
we should torture language. If we had ideas on this 
subject, it is certain that such a combination, such a 
contrariety of words would not convey them. 

If Christ has his nature by derivation from the 
Father, there was a period in eternity, in which he 
had not existence. It was owing to the will of the 



54 JN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

Father that he was brought into being. It is, of course, 
owing to his will that he is continued in existence. 
For the same power, which produced him, can return 
him to his original state. He is, consequently, entirely 
dependent on the Father. If he be not eternal; if he 
be not independent, it is impossible he should possess 
other divine attributes. It is a contradiction to say 
that a dependent being possesses almighty power. It 
appears to be impossible that a being of only a tem- 
porary existence should possess infinite knowledge. It 
is impossible there should be infinite wisdom Avhere 
knowledge is limited. A dependent being cannot be, 
in his own nature, unchangeable. Within these 
limitations it is impossible that a being should be 
omnipresent, and be capable of holding the reins of 
universal government. After the closest investigation 
of the nature of a Son, derived from the Father, (if 
such a thing were possible) it will clearly appear 
that he has not one divine attribute, nor the least 
degree of divine nature. 

It is in vain to attempt to supply the innate defi- 
ciency of this derived Son, by constituting him God's 
agent, and by anointing him with the Spirit without 
measure; and by investing him with divine fulness. 
If Christ was only appointed or constituted Creator of 
the world; if the Father employed him as an instru- 
ment, through whom he exercised his own power, 
Christ was not the actual Creator of the world; and 
the glory of the work w'ould not be due to him. If 
Christ was constituted a Prince; and he was a Prince 
on this ground only, he had no native regal dignity, 
nor regal authority. He acted only under a commis- 
sion; and he, who granted the commission could, at 
any time, withdraw it. This constituted agent would 
not be entitled to those honors, to which the Father, 
who constituted him, would be entitled. There would 
be the same difference in their claims, as there would 
be in the claims of an actor and an instrument. If 
his claims to princely honors rise solely from God's 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 55 

requiring that they should honor the Son even as they 
honor the Father, it is difficult to understand in what 
sense God is jealous for the honor of his name; and 
that he will not give his glory to another. If Christ 
is Judge, only because he is constituted to that office, 
then he does not possess inherent qualifications for 
that station, he is merely the organ, through which 
the Father acts; and the judgment rendered is not 
properly that of the Son, but that of the Father. If 
Christ is a Savior, merely on the ground of a consti- 
tuted character, or merely because he was appointed to 
that office, he would be only an ostensible Savior; the 
Father would be the real Savior. 

If the Son was divine, on the ground of his deriva- 
tion from the Father, there would be no need of 
constituting him to fill divine offices; to sustain divine 
titles; to perform divine works. There would be no 
need of making divine communications to him for these 
purposes. He would be competent in his own nature 
to fill the highest offices; to claim the highest honors; 
and to do the greatest works. If extraordinary divine 
communications are necessary to qualify him for these 
things, it follows that he is not divine. 

If Christ's superior excellence and dignity arises not 
from his nature, but from the communications, which 
the Father made to him, it is difficult to draw a line 
of distinction between him and the prophets. God 
endued Moses with an extraordinary degree of power, 
by which he exhibited signs and wonders before Pha- 
raoh. But who actually wrought these miracles? 
When God called Moses to send him to the king of 
Egypt; and he hesitated to go, God said unto him, "I 
will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with all my 
wonders, which /will do in the midst thereof." The 
power, which God communicated to Moses for this 
purpose, did not become a property of Moses' nature, 
any more than it became the property of the rod, 
which he carried, wherewith, God said, he should do 
signs. Moses never pretended to act by his own 



56 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

strength in his exhibition of miracles, excepting at the 
rock in Horeb; and there he greatly displeased the 
Lord. When Elijah restored to life a dead child of 
the woman with whom he abode, he did not attempt 
the undertaking in his own name, nor by his own might. 
But "he cried unto the Lord and said, O Lord ray 
God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him 
again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and 
the soul of the child came into him again, and he 
revived." Before Elisha raised the child of the 
Shunammite, he prayed unto the Lord. When Peter 
was about to give health to a sick man, he said, "Jesus 
Christ maketh thee whole." When he cured a lame 
man, he said, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, 
rise up and walk." Before he raised Tabitha from 
the dead, he kneeled down and prayed. These were 
wonderful works, which God wrought through them. 
They professed to act under authority; and they 
refused divine honors when they were offered to them. 
If Christ was endued with divine fulness in a simi- 
lar manner, it might be expected that his miracles 
would be attended with similar circumstances. When 
Christ turned water into wine, he addressed no supe- 
rior power. When he healed the impotent man at 
the pool, he simply said, "rise, take up thy bed, and 
walk." When Jesus gave sight to a blind man, he 
applied clay to his eyes; and sent him to the pool of 
Siloam. When he healed a man of the leprosy he 
said, "I will, be thou clean." When he cured a man 
of the palsy, he said, "arise and take up thy couch and 
go unto thine house." The other miraculous cures, 
which he effected, he accomplished in a similar manner. 
When he raised the widow's son of Nain, he only said, 
"Young man, I say unto thee, arise." Before he 
raised Lazarus from the grave he addressed the 
Father. But for what purpose did he address him? 
Was it that the Father would put forth his power 
through him? Christ assigns the reason himself; 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP CiOD. 57 

♦'because of the people which stand by I said it." He 
then cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 

The circumstances attending the miracles, which 
he wrought, did not give the least appearance that 
he acted by power, which was not properly his own. 
When, in consequence of divine works, divine honors 
were addressed to him, he never refused them, nor 
rebuked his worshippers. When people heard his 
instructions they "were astonished at his doctrine; for 
he taught them as one having authority" The proph- 
ets never pretended that they were the authors of 
divine works; and they never claimed divine honors. 
If the Son had performed divine works, only by the 
intervention of the Father's power operating through 
him, he would be no more»<entitled to divine names 
and divine homage than the prophets. 

It has been supposed that, because the Father hath 
given all things into the hand of his Son; because God 
hath exalted and glorified him; because God hath put 
all things under his feet and exalted him with his own 
right hand to be a Prince and a Savior; because God 
ordained him to be Judge of quick and dead; because 
God created the world by him and sent him into the 
world, Christ is inferior to the Father; that he is of a 
lower nature than the Father; that he has no claims 
to divinity excepting on the ground of a constituted 
character, or by the reception of divine fulness. This 
sentiment arises from not making a distinction between 
the Son's nature and the offices which he sustains. 

Had there been no apostasy; had no projection of 
a method of salvation been made and put in operation, 
it is probable the divine plurality would never have 
been manifested. In the scheme of redemption the 
distinctions in the divine nature are brought into view, 
and into distinct operation. In this great work there 
is perfect arrangement; there is perfect order. In 
respect to office there is priority and posteriority. 
In respect to authority and works there is subordina- 
tion. The Father sends the Son; the Son sends the 
8 



58 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 

Holy Spirit. It is the office of the Father to send. 
The offices of the Son and of the Holy Spirit require 
that they should be sent. They fill as important 
offices in the work of salvation as the Father; and 
they appear no less glorious in their offices, than the 
Father does in his. The glories of divine nature 
shine in each. Subordination in the work, of redemp- 
tion is one of its divine perfections; and it argues 
nothing against the divinity of the Son; it is not derog- 
atory to his nature or character that he manifests this 
perfection. 

Some names and works are attributed exclusively to 
the Father, and others are attributed exclusively to 
the Son. This does not appear strange, when it is 
considered that they h$d different offices, and had 
different parts to perform in the work of salvation. 
As the Father holds a precedence in respect to office, 
it is not surprising that those names and works, which 
have an immediate relation to his office, should appear 
to have a preeminence over the names and works, 
which have an immediate relation to the Son's office. 
The Father is called,. "The God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ;" Eph. 1:3. and I Pet. 1:3. He is 
called the Head of Christ. "The Head of every man 
is Christ — and the Head of Christ is God;" 1 Cor. 
11:3. The Son is called "the only begotten of the 
Father;" John 1:14. He is called "the image of the 
invisible God;" Col. 1:15. He is called Mediator. 
"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God 
and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Tim. 2:5. To 
infer from these names of the Son that his nature is 
inferior to the nature of the Father is not logical. 
The name Father is more dignified than the name 
Son. But who ever supposed that the nature of a 
father was essentially different from, or superior to, 
that of his son? The man Christ Jesus had a Head, 
a God, as well as other men; even the Father. His 
office required subordination. Because the Son is 
called the image of the invisible God, it does not fol- 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 59 

low that his nature is inferior. It is common language 
to say, one person is the very image of another. But 
this expression is never understood to mean that he, 
who is called the image, is inferior to him, of whom 
he is the image. The name, or the office of Mediator 
does not necessarily imply that he, who acts in this 
office, is inferior to either party, between whom he 
mediates. There is no higher name given to the 
Deity than the name Jehovah. This name is given 
to the Son. It is believed that the unqualified name 
Jehovah is not given to any creature. If there be 
any proof of divinity from a name, the Son has as high 
proof as the Father. 

Some works are peculiar to the Father. Others 
are peculiar to the Son. This is not strange, as they 
hold different offices. The Father begat the Son. 
"This day have / begotten thee;" Ps. 2:7. The 
Father sent the Son into the world. He gave him all 
authority in heaven and in earth. He hath highly 
exalted him. Christ was begotten. He came into the 
world and assumed human nature. "The Word was 
made flesh;" John 1:14. He humbled, or emptied 
himself. He died; rose, ascended to the Father; and 
makes intercession. He made an atonement for sin. 

We are taught by the word of inspiration in what 
sense the Father begat the Son. "God hath fulfilled 
the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised 
up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;" 
Acts 13:13. This act of begetting, therefore, relates 
only to the body of Jesus Christ. Nothing, of course, 
can be inferred from this respecting that nature of 
his, which had glory with the Father before the world 
was. 

The act of sending does not imply that he, who 
sends, possesses a higher nature than the one who 
was sent. It only designates superiority of office. 
The chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador 
to a foreign court. This act affords no evidence that 



60 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

the former possesses a nature superior to the latter; 
or that he possesses higher qualifications. It only 
proves his higher office. All things were delivered 
unto Christ by the Father. All authority in heaven 
and in earth were given to him. This communication 
does not imply an imparting of any qualities or qualifi- 
cations to him. It rather implies that he possessed 
the necessary qualifications for this office. It is not 
difficult to imagine what qualifications are necessary 
in order to exercise all authority in heaven and in 
earth. To receive this authority only implies a subor- 
dination of office. 

Because Christ was exalted by the Father, it has 
been inferred that he was not divine, as Divinity is not 
capable of exaltation. The man Christ Jesus receives 
great reward, great honor, great exaltation in conse- 
quence of the part he performed on earth. He is 
seated on the right hand of God. If it be admitted 
that the Son of God was in a state of humiliation 
when he was upon earth; that he emptied himself of 
that glory, which he had with the Father before the 
world was, there will be no difficulty in admitting his 
exaltation, when he returns to his former glory; and 
as Savior receives the bowing of every knee, of things 
in heaven and things in earth, and things under the 
earth; and the confession of every tongue that he is 
Lord. Such is the union of nature and connexion of 
office between the Son and the Father, that this exal- 
tation, this glory of the Son will also be "to the glory 
of God the Father." 

The peculiar union of the Son of God with humanity 
affords no evidence against hfs Divinity. While he 
was in the man Christ Jesus, he concealed, in a great 
measure, the glories of his nature; and he suffered a 
reproach, an ignominy, which before had not been 
given him. But this concealment of his glory, this 
dishonor offered to him does not imply a change in 
his nature. If a king descend from his throne, assume 
the appearance of one of his subjects, and receive rude 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 61 

treatment from them, these circumstances effect no 
change in his nature, nor do they imply it. We do 
not attempt to explain the union, which subsists 
between the Son of God and the son of man. When 
those, who maintain that God the Father was in 
Jesus Christ; that the fulness of the Godhead, which 
dwelt bodily in him was the Father, not the Son, 
will explain that union of Deity with humanity, their 
explanation will answer our purpose as well as theirs. 

If Adam could with propriety be called Son of 
God, with the same propriety could Christ, in respect 
to his human nature, be called Son of God. Adam 
was formed by the immediate act of divine power. 
The child Jesus was also formed by the immediate 
act of the same power. But in a different, and in a 
higher sense is Christ the Son of God. He is not 
only called Son, but he is called the own Son; the 
dearly beloved Son; the first begotten, the only begot- 
ten Son. These additions to his name are marks of 
peculiar distinction. 

The term son, when applied to Adam, in relation 
to his heavenly Father, has a signification different 
from what it has, when applied to any of the human 
race, in relation to their earthly parents. If the rela- 
tive term son, necessarily implied derived existence, 
then the first man as literally derived his nature from 
the substance of God, as children derive their natures 
from the substance of their parents. But a word 
does not always signify the same thing. Sometimes 
it is used in an extensive, sometimes in a restricted 
sense. Sometimes it is used literally, sometimes 
figuratively. When a word is used figuratively, there 
is a resemblance between the thing signified by it 
literally, and the thing signified by it figuratively. 
When God is called a rock, the propriety of the figure 
arises from some points of resemblance between God 
and a rock. The qualities of this hard substance are 
expressive of the steadfastness and durability of the 
divine nature. Christ is called a shield. This piece 



fo'2 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 

of armor was formerly used in war to secure the body 
from the weapons of the enemy. Christ is a defence 
against the attacks of the great adversary. The 
Savior is called a vine. A vine has many branches, 
and it supports them all. The Savior has many mem- 
bers, and they all derive support from him. Christ is 
called a shepherd. A shepherd feeds and defends 
his flock. Christ feeds his followers with spiritual 
food; and he defends them against the attacks of their 
enemies. Many other names are figuratively applied 
to Christ. Because he is called a Shield, a Vine, a 
Shepherd, it does not follow that he is literally a 
shield, a vine, a shepherd. The propriety and force 
of these appellations arise from some striking resem- 
blance there is between the Savior and those things, 
by whose name he is called. Figurative language is 
peculiarly significant and striking. When it is wished 
to convey ideas of an object, with which people are 
but little acquainted, no method is so concise and eligi- 
ble, as to compare it with something, or call it by a 
name, with which people are acquainted. Then, by 
selecting the most prominent qualities of the best 
known part of the comparison, they may be applied 
to that part of the comparison, which is less known. 
By this method ideas are frequently conveyed with 
greater clearness and force. When Christ wished to 
impress it upon the minds of people that he pointed 
out the course, which led to heaven; that only through 
his merits and mediation mankind could have access 
to the mercy-seat; that he communicates only truth; 
that he was the origin and support of spiritual life in 
the soul, it was with peculiar pertinence and force he 
said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." 

It may be inquired how it can be known when a 
passage of scripture is to be understood literally, and 
when it is to be understood figuratively. Without 
giving any general directions in answer to this inquiry, 
it is sufficient for the present purpose to lay down one 
particular rule; viz. if any text or expression of scrip- 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 63 

ture, taken literally, be an impossibility or an absurdity, 
it must be taken figuratively. For example, "If any 
man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, 
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, 
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." As 
it is impossible that a real hating of these near con- 
nexions should be a necessary ingredient in the char- 
acter of Christ's disciples, the word hate, must be 
understood in a comparative or figurative sense. The 
phrase, Son of God, cannot be understood in a literal 
sense; because it is impossible that God should have a 
Son derived from his nature, as a child is derived from 
its parents. It is impossible that divine nature, and 
divine attributes should be communicated, unless the 
original proprietor sustained a loss of them. It is 
impossible there should be two separate and distinct 
divine natures, without admitting the existence of two 
gods. If the expression, Son of God, cannot be taken 
literally, it must be taken figuratively. 

As Christ is called the Son of God, as he cannot be 
his literal and proper Son, it may be expected there 
is a striking resemblance between the relationship, 
which Jesus Christ bears to the Father, and the rela- 
tionship, which a son bears to his parents. Although 
we cannot comprehend the mode of divine subsistence, 
yet there are points of coincidence in the comparison, 
which give beauty and force to the figure. 

1. There is a similarity of nature between a son 
and his father. There is often a family likeness. A 
son often inherits the aspect of his father. He often* 
inherits the distinguishing characteristics of body and 
mind, which his father possessed. His moral nature 
and character often resemble those of his father. 
Though there be some dissimilarity between a father 
and his son; yet there are probably no two objects in 
the rational world, which sustain a more striking 
resemblance. Their bodies are of similar substance 
and of similar configuration. Their minds are of simi- 
lar natures, and of similar powers and faculties. 



64 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 

The resemblance there is between a son and his 
father, is one reason why Christ is called Son of God; 
and that God is called his Father. His nature is simi- 
lar to that of the Father. By this expression it is 
not designed to convey the idea that the Son and 
Father are two distinct natures; nor is it designed to 
convey the idea that the Son is the Father, and the 
Father is the Son. Like the Father, the Son is divine. 
Like the Father, he is eternal, self-existent, and inde- 
pendent. There is a perfect resemblance between 
them; and there is a mysterious union, by which many 
things may be predicated of both. This striking 
similarity is one reason why Christ is called Son of 
God. 

2. There is a near and endearing relationship sub- 
sisting between a son and his father. The former 
proceeded from the latter. There is no relationship 
more near and endearing than this. This then is 
another reason why Jesus Christ is called the Son of 
God. The union, which subsists between them, forms 
a relationship, which is nearer than any, which can 
be formed by flesh and blood. He is in the bosom 
of the Father; he is one with the Father; they, who 
have seen him, have seen the Father also. Mutual 
affection subsists between them. 

3. A son, while under the care and support of his 
father, is subordinate to him. He is not subordinate 
in respect to nature. For he possesses all the essential 
qualities, which his father possesses. But he is in 
subjection to him. He submits to parental authority; 
and he appears to the greatest advantage when he 
is in his proper place, the place of obedience. Christ 
may, with propriety be called a Son, in respect to his 
subordination to his heavenly Father. In the economy 
of redemption different works are to be performed; 
different offices are to be occupied. Methodical 
arrangement must be established "and acknowledged. 
The Father holds the place of authority; Christ holds 
the place of submission. This order of offices implies 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 65 

no arbitrary power, nor servile subjection. It is es- 
tablished with the greatest cordiality. It is the office 
of the Father to appoint; it is the office of Christ 
to act under his commission. It is the office of Christ 
to ask, and it is the office of the Father to grant his 
requests. The Father is under as much obligation, 
according to the covenant of redemption, to grant 
the intercessions of his Son, as the Son is to submit 
to the authority of the Father. The sacred scrip- 
tures represent the Holy Spirit to be as subordinate 
to the Son, as the Son is to the Father. Christ said 
to his disciples, "It is expedient for you that I go 
away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto 
you." 

4. A father loves his son. The similarity of nature, 
the relationship, and the subordination, produce a 
strong affection in a father's breast. God the Father 
loves the Lord Jesus Christ. He loves him for his 
excellence of nature. He loves him for his holiness. 
He loves him for his union with himself. He loves 
him for the faithful performance of the duties of his 
office. The Father has declared him to be his own 
Son; his dearly beloved Son, in whom he is well 
pleased. The love, which he exercises toward him 
is another reason, for which he calls him his Son. 

Christ is not only called a Son, but he is called a 
begotten Son. People, who have understood the 
term Son, literally, have also understood the term 
beget, or begotten, literally. They have supposed 
there was a power in the Father to generate, and a 
power in the Son to be generated. They were aware 
that this method, if it were not qualified, supposed a 
posteriority of existence in the Son. To remedy 
this difficulty they maintained that the essence of 
the Son was not begotten; but his person was begotten. 
The distinction between his nature and person, they 
made to consist in something, which was incommuni- 
cable from the Father to the Son, or from the Son to 
9 



66 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

the Father. They held, that the Father had a 
power to beget, and the Son had a power to be 
begotten. 

There appears to be no small degree of inconsist- 
ency in this hypothesis. It supposes that there is no 
other difference between the Father and the Son, than 
this; the Father had a power to beget. But what 
did he beget? He begat the person of the Son; i. e. 
according to the hypothesis, he begat a power in the 
Son to be begotten. The hypothesis first supposes 
the existence of the Son; then it supposes the pro- 
duction of some distinguishing personal quality, which 
he already possessed. Or it supposes that he possesses 
some adventitious quality, for which he was entirely 
dependent. To avoid the imputation of dependence 
to Christ, they maintained the eternal generation of 
the Son. Thus they secured their sentiment from 
refutation in the obscurity of language. 

The human nature of Christ was begotten; but his 
divine nature was unbegotten. The Son of God was 
always the same in his nature and attributes, and in his 
union and relationship to his heavenly Father. In a 
figurative sense he might be said to be begotten, 
when he actually came into the office of Redeemer; 
received mediatorial authority, and became submissive 
to God the Father. He might be said to be begot- 
ten, when he was manifested on earth in the office of 
Redeemer; and by the name, Son of God. Those 
are said to be begotten, who are brought out of one 
state into another. Paul to the Corinthians says, "In 
Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." 
To Philemon he says, "I beseech thee for my son 
Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." 
Christ may be said to be begotten by his resurrection 
from the dead. By this act he was more fully declared 
to the world than he before had been. Before this 
time, even his disciples were exceedingly ignorant of 
him; the design of his coming, and the nature of his 
kingdom. By his resurrection his own prophecy was 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 67 

iulfilled, and he was in a capacity for making more full 
displays of the divine will by making more copious 
communications of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul 
appears to have viewed the resurrection of Christ in 
this light when he said to the Jews, "God hath ful- 
filled the same unto us their children, in that he hath 
raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second 
Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee." The circumstances attending Christ in his intro- 
duction into office; his introduction into the world; his 
resurrection from the dead, are similar in some respects 
to the production of a human son. The circumstances 
are so analogous that there is a foundation for calling 
Christ a begotten Son. 

Christ is also called the only begotten Son. By the 
law of analogy there is a striking propriety in this 
expression. In his human nature no one was ever so 
begotten as he was. In his divine nature no one ever 
sustained those offices; that intimate union and near 
relationship to the Father, which he sustained. Par- 
ents often feel an extraordinary affection for an only, or 
an only begotten son. "When God required Abraham 
to offer Isaac in sacrifice, he commanded him saying, 
take now thy son, thine only son. The apostle, speak- 
ing of the faith of Abraham, calls Isaac his only begot- 
ten son. At that time Abraham had another, and an 
older son. But he had an extraordinary affection for 
this younger son; and on account of this strong affec- 
tion, God called him his only son; and by the mouth of 
his apostle he called him his only begotten son. There 
is analogy in nature, therefore, for calling Christ the 
only begotten Son of God. The Father loves him with 
an everlasting love. He loves him for the excellence 
of his nature, and for the fulfilment of the duties of 
his offices. No language was better calculated to 
convey , the idea of God's great love to Christ than 
this. 

Christ is repeatedly called in the scriptures the first 
born, the first begotten. This language is also figura- 



68 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 

tive. The propriety and force of this figure arise 
from the peculiar prerogatives of the first born of 
God's ancient chosen people. The first born was 
principal heir of his father's substance. He had 
dominion over his brethren. Isaac, in blessing Jacob, 
said, "Be lord over thy brethren; and let thy mother's 
sons bow down to thee." It was the privilege of the 
first bom to have the priest's office. In all these 
respects there is such a similarity between the pre- 
rogatives of the first born and the prerogatives of 
Christ, that there is a peculiar propriety in calling 
him the first born. God hath appointed him heir of 
all things. Christ is said to be the first born among 
many brethren, denoting he has dominion over them. 
It is written, that the Father hath given him authority 
to execute judgment; that all power is given to him 
in heaven and in earth. He performed the duties of 
a priest. He was formally consecrated to the priest's 
office. He made intercession for the people, and 
offered sacrifice for their sins. 

Christ is called the first born of every creature. 
Some have understood by this that he is the first cre- 
ated being. It has been shewn in what sense he is 
the first born; and it appears that in all things he has 
the preeminence. Besides, the original, from which 
this passage is translated, might with equal propriety 
be rendered, born before every creature. Christ is 
likewise the first born, the first begotten from the 
dead. He is called the first fruits of them that slept. 
Christ was first born from the dead in respect to his 
dignity. He was Lord of the dead. Never did the 
tomb hold so glorious a prisoner. Never did sueh 
circumstances attend the resurrection of any other. 
This holy One did not see corruption. His resurrec- 
tion was first, or he was the first born from the dead, 
inasmuch as his resurrection proved, and was the pro- 
curing cause of the resurrection of those, who had 
been, or would be, under the dominion of death. "If 
the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; but now 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 69 

is Christ risen and become the first fruits of them 
that slept." 

In the writings of the Old Testament God called 
Christ the Son, and my Son. From these expressions 
the Jews expected that the Messiah was the Son of 
God; and it appears they expected he would appear 
with that title, and in that character. Although Jesus 
Christ was somewhat obscurely revealed under the 
Jewish dispensation; yet the phrase, the Son, my Son, 
had, in their opinion, a peculiar and appropriate 
meaning, a meaning different from the term son, when 
applied to any of the human race. 

The Jews, in consequence of the revelations, which 
they possessed, expected a glorious personage in the 
Messiah. Had their expectations been realised in 
respect to his appearance, it seems, according to human 
calculation, that they would have acknowledged him 
to be the Messiah; that they would not have been 
offended, if he had claimed the title, Son of God. 
But when they saw his humble appearance; when 
they saw his object was different from what they 
expected, they viewed him as a mere man. When 
he called God his Father; when he called himself the 
Son of God, they considered him making pretensions 
to divinity; assuming the place of the Messiah; and 
making himself equal with God. They supposed the 
title implied divine nature. They, of course, consid- 
ered him blasphemous when he made such preten- 
sions. As he did not correct them for error in their 
construction of the title Son of God, it is presumable 
they put a right construction upon it. 

Because a son signifies a natural descendant from 
parents, it does not follow that the divine Son is a 
natural descendant from his heavenly Father. We 
often reason from one thing to another. But the rules 
of analogy are of limited extent; and they are greatly 
confined in their application. There is a resemblance 
and proportion between different things in some par- 
ticulars. But beyond a certain extent resemblance 



70 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 

and proportion fail. There is a resemblance between 
a man and a brute. Their bodies are material, and 
they are both sensitive. But, because the rational 
principle in man is caspable of improvement, it does not 
follow that the instinct of brutes possesses the same 
capacity. Because the bodies of both are mortal, 
it does not follow that both will be reorganized and 
reanimated. The human mind bears some resem- 
blance to the divine mind. It was formed after its 
likeness. But there is no proportion between what is 
finite and what is infinite. Because God has given a 
power to human nature to produce and perpetuate its 
kind, it follows, God has a power to produce the same 
kind. The inference is corroborated by the fact, that 
he did originally produce it. But from these premises 
it does not follow that he has a power to produce a 
divine species. No rules of logic, no analogy of nature 
will justify such an inference. It is a natural impos- 
sibility that infinite power should produce infinite 
power; that an eternal Being should produce an eter- 
nal Being; that self-existence should produce self-exist- 
ence. Because this confounds cause and effect. It is 
a natural impossibility that a divine nature should not 
have divine attributes. Because a nature is designa- 
ted by its attributes. It is a natural impossibility 
that divine attributes should be limited by any thing 
foreign from their own nature. Because it is the pre- 
rogative of divine attributes that they have no supe- 
rior. As far as there are points of likeness and pro- 
portion between things there is analogy; and so far 
analogical reasoning may be used, and no further. 

To obviate the sentiment that Christ is Son of God 
by derivation, it is not necessary to have recourse to 
the peculiar mode of the conception of his humanity 
as a primary reason of his sonship. Without doubt 
this is one reason, for which he is called Son of God; 
but for other and more important reasons he is called 
the Son of God, the first begotten, the only begotten, 
the dearly beloved, the own Son. If the humanity of 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 71 

Christ was the principal ground of calling him Son of 
God, then Adam was Son of God in as high sense as 
Christ; for his nature was no less the immediate effect 
of God's power than the humanity of Jesus Christ. 
The angels, being of a more exalted nature than 
humanity, they would be sons of God in a higher sense 
than the human nature of Christ. When the apostle 
Paul to the Hebrews describes the excellence of 
Christ, and contrasts him with angels, he infers his 
superiority from this circumstance, that God called 
him his Son; but never gave this distinguishing appel- 
lation to them; and that he promises to be to him a 
Father, and that he should be to him a Son. Because 
this promise is in future tense, it does not follow that 
his humanity is the 'primary ground of his sonship, or 
that his sonship originated with his incarnation. As 
he had not been clearly manifested to the world by 
that name and in that relationship to the Father before 
this prediction, it was proper, in view of the manifes- 
tation of him as Son in the flesh to make the promise 
in future time, although the relationship then actually 
existed. After God delivered Israel from Egyptian 
bondage, he promised them saying, I will walk among 
you; and will be your God; and ye shall be my people. 
This promise is in future time; but who doubts that 
God walked among them at that time; and at that 
time he was their God and that they were his people? 
As the relationship was to continue, it was proper to 
make the declaration in future tense. As the rela- 
tionship between the Father and the Son was perma- 
nent, it was no less proper to declare it in future than 
in present time. 

"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." 
If God's declaration to Christ that he would be his 
Father and that Christ would be his Son, must neces- 
sarily be taken in future tense, this declaration of the 
Psalmist must, by the same necessity, be taken in the 
present tense. It would, of course, follow that the 
Son was begotten at the time the Psalm, containing 



72 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

this declaration, was written. But in prophetic lan- 
guage it is not uncommon that one tense is put for 
another. The prophet Isaiah described the sufferings 
of the Messiah many centuries before he suffered, in 
the present, and in the past tense. The prophetic 
writings, and the peculiar idiom of the Hebrew lan- 
guage admit some variation of tense. "Thou art my 
Son, this day have I begotten thee." The apostle 
Paul does not consider this passage to have relation 
to the nativity of Jesus, but to his resurrection. In his 
address to the men of Israel he said, ' ; We declare unto 
you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was 
made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same 
unto us their children in that he hath raised up Jesus 
again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." It ap- 
pears, of course, that, when Christ is called the first 
begotten, the only begotten Son, these terras do not 
designate the origin of his human nature, but are 
applied to him in a higher and in a more distinguish- 
ing sense. The apostle Paul to the Romans, speaking 
of Christ says, "Declared to be the Son of God with 
power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resur- 
rection from the dead." He is also called "the first 
born from the dead." Hence it follows that the terms 
begotten and born when applied to Christ are not 
always to be understood literally; that they do not 
always apply to his nativity. 

The discourse, which Gabriel had with Mary, has, 
more than once, been used to prove that the filiation 
of Christ originated from his incarnation. "The angel 
answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall 
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
overshadow thee, therefore, also, that holy thing that 
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." 
The holy thing, which was to be born of Mary, was 
the holy Child Jesus. This Child was called the Son 
of God. Christ was called the Son of God, the first 
begotten, the only begotten Son; when the Father 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 73 

declared, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
pleased." These distinguishing and endearing appel- 
lations were not applied exclusively to the humanity 
of Christ. They were applied to him when Divinity 
and humanity were united. If the humanity of Christ 
sustained a nearer relationship to the Father than his 
Divinity, there would be ground for applying the 
terms, importing the nearest relationship, primarily 
to his human nature. But as there is not that near- 
ness of relationship between God and a creature that 
there is in the divine nature, it is presumable that 
those appellations, which import the nearest relation- 
ship, were applied primarily to that nature of Christ, 
which bore the nearest relationship to the Father. 
Consequently they could not have a primary reference 
to his humanity. So intimate was the union between 
the Divinity and humanity of Christ, that it is not 
doubted that the name Son might with propriety, be 
applied to either nature distinctly or to both natures 
conjointly; and at the same time primary reference 
be made to his divine nature. 

The apostle to the Galatians, speaking of Christ, 
^ays, "When the fulness of the time was come, God 
sent forth his Son, made of a woman; made under the 
law, to redeem them that are under the law." This 
te^t does not teach how Christ became God's Son. It 
does not teach that his Sonship originated from his 
being made of a woman. The original word in this 
text, translated made, might with much more propriety 
be translated born. The text, thus translated, would 
stand in this manner, "God sent forth his Son, born of 
a woman, born under the law." It is not true that 
the humanity of Jesus was wholly made of a woman. 
His human spirit was not derived from Mary. She 
did not impart any portion of her spirit to his body^ 
Spirit is not divisible; and of course it is not a subject 
of propagation. The body and soul of Jesus were 
both born of Mary. It is presumable that Divinity 
was united to his body before his birth, that it was 
10 



74 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

united at the time of his conception; that both natures 
were brought into the world in union. Before Jesus 
was born, he was called that holy thing. Though the 
holy thing might embrace only his humanity; yet it 
was probably called holy, not only on account of his 
immaculate conception, but on account of his union 
with Divinity. It is evident that divine nature was 
in union with the child Jesus immediately after his 
birth, because he was called Emmanuel, which signi- 
fies, "God with us." The name would not be appro- 
priate if divine nature were not united with the human 
nature of Jesus. As there is nothing recorded, which 
affords evidence that such union occurred after his 
birth, it is presumable that it occurred before this 
event. In view of these suggestions the text under 
consideration reads naturally, "God sent forth his 
Son." He sent him forth from heaven. He was 
"bom of a woman" in conjunction with human nature. 
He was "born under the law;" he was born under the 
Jewish dispensation, and was subject to the institutions 
and ordinances of the ceremonial law. In his human 
nature he was subjected to death. Though he knew 
no sin himself; yet he suffered death for the sins of 
others. 

"The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the 
Father, he hath declared him." These words Christ 
spoke, when he was in the flesh. When he made 
this declaration, did he design to convey the idea that 
his human nature was in the bosom of the Father, 
and that his human nature had declared him? Were 
these the primary ideas that he designed to convey 
by this declaration? Does the appellation, the only 
begotten Son, in this text, apply primarily to the 
humanity of Christ? Christ's Divinity is in more inti- 
mate union with the Father than his humanity. 
When he is said to be in the bosom of the Father, 
it has of course a primary reference to his Divinity. 
Christ, in his divine nature has declared the Father 
much more than he has in his human nature. When 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 75 

he is said to declare him, it has, of course, a primary 
reference to his divine nature. 

Some communication was made in the Old Testa- 
ment respecting tire Father and the Son. If the rela- 
tionship, which these names import, actually existed 
at that time, why was it not more fully and distinctly 
revealed? For the same reason, undoubtedly, for 
which the doctrine of the Trinity, and the scheme 
of redemption were not so fully and distinctly revealed 
in the Old, as in the New Testament. God revealed 
himself, and unfolded his gracious designs by degrees. 
So intimate was the connexion between the doctrine 
of the Trinity and the plan of salvation, that the 
unfolding of the one would, in a great measure, unfold 
the other. As God designed not to make a full 
display of the method of salvation till after the incar- 
nation of his Son, he of course, withheld a propor- 
tionate display of the relationship which subsisted in 
the divine nature. As the economy of redemption 
depended on this relationship, it appears proper that 
they should be revealed proportionably and together. 

In the Old Testament the divine nature was revealed 
by many names. Among others, it was revealed by 
the names Father and Son. Did not a relationship then 
subsist between these two, which was a proper ground 
for applying to them these relative names? Or, were 
these names applied to them only in view of a rela- 
tionship, which was afterwards to subsist? In support 
of the affirmative of the latter question it is argued, 
"We say, when king David kept his father's sheep. 
But he was not king when he kept them. We say, 
when king Solomon was born. Yet he was not born 
Icing nor Solomon. But afterward being known by 
both the office and the name, these are carried back 
to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, 
my father was born in such a year. He does not 
mean that he was born his father" From these 
premises it is inferred that when it is said, "God so 
loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son; 



76 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP COD. 

God sent forth his Son;" these declarations do not 
import that Christ was son before he was sent; but 
that "the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his 
beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom, infinitely 
dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, 
and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God." 
This reasoning does not appear to be correct. 
Because the examples adduced are not parallel with 
the subject under consideration. The examples take 
the present name, relationship and office of persons, 
and apply the same to them at a past period of their 
life. But, according to the argument, the subject 
takes the future name of Christ, and applies it to him 
at the present time. If it be proper to apply the 
present name of a person to him in a past condition 
of life, it does not follow that it is proper to apply 
the future name of a person to him in his present 
state. The premises and the conclusion are not 
analogous; and of course the argument is not correct; 
and the inference is not conclusive. 

In the divine nature the same relationship always 
has subsisted and always will subsist. Among creatures 
new relationships arise; and as creatures come into 
existence relationships arise between them and their 
Creator. But there is no change in the divine Being. 
If there be ground in the divine nature now for 
calling one of the Trinity Father and another Son, 
there always was ground for the application of these 
relative names. If one of the Trinity was manifested 
to the world as Son of God, there was ground in his 
nature for this manifestation before he appeared in 
the world. His coming into the world and assuming 
human nature did not aifect his relation to the others 
of the Trinity. His humanity commenced its rela- 
tionship with God, but his Divinity no more com- 
menced a relationship with the Father, than it 
commenced existence. Whatever his human nature 
may be called, it does not affect the proper name of 
his divine nature. 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OP GOD. 77 

There is a certain relationship subsisting between 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The ques- 
tion now is, whether there appears to be ground in 
the divine nature for calling one of them Son? There 
is no dispute that one is called Father. He is not so 
called in relation to creatures; because when their 
Father is named, it is God without the distinction of 
individuality. When one of the Trinity is called 
Father, it is in relation to another of the Trinity. If 
it be proper to call the first Father in relation to the 
second, it is proper to call the second Son in relation 
to the first. 

The great love of God toward the human race is 
argued in the scriptures from his not sparing his own 
Son; but delivering him up for us all. If God's Son 
imports no more than the man Christ Jesus, God did 
not manifest an extraordinary love for the human 
race in giving him up in sacrifice. If a prince 
should subject to death one of his subjects for the 
sake of the preservation of the rest, he would not 
display an extraordinary love for them. Any prince 
would do the same. But if, for this purpose he 
should expose to death his own, and only son, who 
was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, he would 
give decisive evidence of his exceedingly great love 
for his subjects. If God has exposed one of the 
Trinity, who was in the most near and endearing rela- 
tionship to himself, to all the insolence and violence, 
which an ungrateful world could offer him, it cannot 
be doubted that he entertained an affectionate regard 
for his human rebellious subjects. Because the 
sacrifice of his Son was efficacious and satisfactory, 
there is the strongest evidence that the Son was of 
higher nature and dignity than mere humanity. 

The sacred scriptures testify that God sent his Son 
into the world. This mode of expression conveys 
the idea that Christ was his Son, when he sent him; 
and that the act of sending him, or of attaching 
human nature to him, did not make him his Son. If 



78 IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

it be said that a man sends his son on business it is 
understood that the child is really a son at the time 
lie was sent; and not that he is to be made a son by 
any future act. God's sending his Son into the world, 
signifies his sending one of the Trinity upon earth 
among mankind. This act of sending the Son, can- 
not have reference to his introduction to the duties of 
his office, because he was in the world before this 
time. To say he was sent into the world after he 
was in the world, would not be a correct mode of 
expression. If the Son whom God sent into the 
world, was one of the Trinity, there was the same 
ground for calling him Son before, as there was after 
he was sent. No new relation has ever been formed 
between them; and he that was sent from heaven, 
has, ever since the apostasy, stood in the same rela- 
tion to the human race. He has been appointed to 
no new office since that time. He has acted in no- 
office since that time, which would appropriately give 
him the name Son. 

The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, has given infor- 
mation on what ground he received this name. He 
obtained by inheritance, or he hath inherited, (accord- 
ing to the original) the name Son. ''Being made so 
much better than the angels, as he hath by inherit- 
ance obtained, or he hath inherited a more excellent 
name than they. For unto which of the angels said 
he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, 
and he shall be to me a Son." The apostle gives us 
to understand that the name, which was better than 
that of the angels was Son; and he expressly says he 
inherited this name. Many of his names were official. 
He was called Messiah, Jesus, Lord, Christ, Media- 
tor, Redeemer. These names he did not inherit in 
the same sense. They were given him on account 
of the offices, which he sustained. The name Son, 
he inherited. He was entitled to it by the relation- 
ship, which subsisted between him and the Father. 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. /^ 

Angels and men have received the name Son of God. 
But they did not inherit it, in the same sense, in which 
he did. Christ obtained this name in a peculiar and 
distinguishing sense, in a sense, in which no creature 
ever obtained it. This is an evidence that he is in 
nearer relationship to the Father than any created 
being. If Christ was called Son, only on account of 
his human nature, then he was not Son in any higher 
sense than angels and men; and he inherited it in no 
other manner than they. But the apostle reasons 
otherwise. He argues Christ's nearer relationship to 
the Father, and his superior excellence and dignity 
from this fact, that he inherited a more excellent name 
than the angels; that he inherited the name Son of 
God. 

It is admitted that the humanity of Christ is some- 
times called Son of God. The scriptures testify that 
he raised his Son from the dead. But the man Christ 
Jesus was not Son of God in a higher sense than Adam. 
When Christ is called God's own and only Son; his 
dearly beloved, his first begotten, his only begotten 
Son, these appellations primarily designate his divine 
nature. If either of these appellations are applied to 
his humanity, it is because his humanity is united with 
him, who is in a peculiar sense the Son of God. 

If the sonship of Christ originated from his human- 
ity, then the Holy Spirit was Father of the Son. 
The angel declared to Joseph, "that which is con- 
ceived in her, (i. e. Mary,) is of the Holy Ghost." 
When Christ addresses his Father, he does not address 
the Holy Spirit. He addresses another of the Trinity. 
Why is this, if the Holy Spirit is the Father of the 
Son. When Christ addresses his Father, he addresses 
him, who sent him from heaven into the world, and 
whom he obeys. He addresses him who stands first 
in order in the work of redemption. 

It is natural to inquire why two of the Trinity are 
called Father and Son? It is not supposable that finite 
minds can fully understand the ground of relationship 



80 IN WHAT SBNSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 

in the divine plurality. It appears reasonable that 
the relationship between the Father and the Son is 
not literal; that there is not that priority and poste- 
riority of existence, and those claims and obligations, 
which there are between a human father and son. 
If there be a striking analogy in several prominent 
points in the relationship between Christ and the 
Father, and between a human son and his father, there 
is sufficient ground for calling Christ the Son of the 
Father, or the Son of God. Such analogy appears; 
and there appears to be just ground for applying to 
them the relative names Father and Son. 

The relationship between God and the human 
nature of Christ isnot a sufficient ground for calling him 
literally, Son of God. The origination of his existence, 
and the origination of the existence of a human son, 
in the ordinary way, were too different to be a ground 
for calling him, by this name. Yet there is such a 
resemblance between the origination of the two, that 
figuratively the man Christ Jesus, may, with propriety, 
be called Son of God. If this appellation be applied 
figuratively to Christ, either in his human, or divine 
nature, it is also used figuratively, when it is applied 
to him without the distinction of natures. 

In the Old Testament, Christ, in relation to the 
Father, is called Son. He is called by this name in 
connexion with the present, the past and future tense. 
By one prophet God said of Christ, "Thou art my 
Son; he shall be to me a Son." By another prophet 
he said, "I called my Son out of Egypt." These pas- 
sages appear to furnish evidence that the sonship of ' 
Christ may be traced as remotely, at least, as the time 
when these declarations were made. But in the pro- 
phetic writings tenses are not always used literally. 
Revelation was much more obscurely made in the Old, 
than in the New Testament. There is much greater 
reason for explaining the Old Testament by the New, 
than there is for explaining the New Testament by 
the Old. It is much more reasonable to explain pro- 



IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. 81 

phecy by its event, than to explain an event by its 
prophecy. The reality affords more correct and 
definite ideas than the representation. The Sun of 
Righteousness sheds more copious light than all the 
shadows, which had dimly prefigured him. The Old 
Testament, like the lesser light in the firmament, 
reflects light from its obscure representations. But the 
New Testament, like the sun in the heavens, sheds its 
own native splendor. 

Christ's being begotten, first begotten, only begot- 
ten, import his introduction into the world; his intro- 
duction into office; his reception of all authority, and 
his resurrection from the dead. These acts did not 
bring him into a new relationship with the Father. 
They did not make him Son. They declared, or 
manifested that he was the Son of God.* 

* If there be distinctions in the divine nature, it is not incredible that names 
should be given them to designate their relationship with each other. Whatever 
that relationship is, it cannot be expected that any name, or names, can give us 
a full conception of it. There is nothing, which falls under our notice, which 
can give an adequate representation of those distinctions, which constitute the 
divine plurality. But when God would reveal himself to us, he uses various 
similitudes, so that he may, in some measure, bring himself down to our con- 
ception. When he would express the near relationship between himself, the 
Creator, and ourselves his creatures, he calls himself Father, and us his chil- 
dren. When he would acquaint us with his knowledge of the affairs of this 
world, he represents himself, as if he possessed organs of sense. This is figura- 
tive language, and it conveys the ideas, which were designed. If he would reveal 
to us the distinctions and relationships, which exist in his nature, he must, un- 
doubtedly, use words in a figurative sense; because these are subjects, different 
from all those, with which we are acquainted. When he reveals himself by the 
relative terms, Father and Son, these distinctive appellations must be understood 
in a sense not inconsistent with the divine perfections. Whatever is predicated 
of the Son of God, as it respects his nature, which implies literal sonship, literal 
generation, derivation, emanation, or procession, appears to be directly against 
his independence and his eternal, self-existence. Or, in other words, it 
appears to be directly against his divinity. But if it be admitted that the dis- 
tinctive terms, Father and Son, are to be understood in a figurative sense, this 
difficulty ceases to exist. 

If the phrases, Son of God, first begotten, only begotten, first born, are un- 
derstood figuratively, they may be consistently applied to Christ, in his divine 
nature, unless certain texts of scripture, render this application inadmissible. 
So far from this, the scriptures apply to him the term Son, before he took upon 
him the form of a servant. The apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, speaking 
of the Son, says, "By whom also he made the worlds." John, iu his Gospo', 
attributes the creation of the world to the Logos. There is no doubt that the 
Son and Logos are the same; and it appears that both are names given to his 
divine Hatuie. When it is considered that seversl names are given to God with- 
out a view of the distinctions in his nature, it is not incredible that more names 
than one should be given to the Son of God. It is not doubted that he derived 
names t'rvm. his offices, from his works, and from his union with human nature. 
But it appears that, independently of these, he inherited by right, one name, 
and that was Son. 

11 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 



Names, in the sacred scriptures, are frequently signifi- 
cant of the nature or qualities of the thing or being 
named. When language was in its infancy, names 
were given to different classes of beings, whose natural 
signification would distinguish one class from another. 
In giving names to individuals of a species, words were 
used, which designated some characteristic quality; 
or some remarkable circumstance attending them. 
The word Adam, which was used for a name of the 
first man, signifies ruddy, earth, man. His name, 
therefore, denoted the substance and one of its quali- 
ties, of which his body was formed. The name, Eve, 
given to the first woman signifies "the manifester, 
because she was, or was to be the mother of all that 
live." This denotes her relative situation to the 
human family. The word Moses signifies to draw 
out. This name was given to a child, which was 
hidden among the flags on the river's brink; and this 
name was given him because he was drawn out of the 
water; and this was the most prominent circumstance 
of his early life. The name, angel, is given to that 
elevated order of spirits, which stand around God's 
throne, and receive messages from him to this world, 
because the original word, both in Hebrew and in 
Greek signifies messenger, or one sent. The name 
characterizes their office. Instances of significant 
names in the sacred scriptures are too numerous to 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 83 

be quoted. Those already cited are sufficient for the 
present purpose. 

"The Hebrew names of God, as Jerome (the best 
Hebrecian of the fathers) observes are ten; three 
come from being; three from power; three from gov- 
erning; one from excellence." He is called the holy 
One, which name denotes his moral excellence. As 
the names of things, of persons, and of God in the 
sacred scriptures are significant, it is not improbable 
that the names of his Son are significant; that they 
are expressive of his nature and attributes. 

"What is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" His 
name is God. "In the beginning was the Word, and 
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 
When Thomas saw Christ after his resurrection, and 
had full evidence that it was he, who had been cruci- 
fied, he exclaimed, "My Lord and my God." In the 
original it is expressed with peculiar emphasis, and 
conveys the clearest idea of his belief of his divinity. 
(o yifyiog jxou vlui §" Seog /xov.) Christ, instead of upbraid- 
ing him for his faith, and for ascribing to him this di- 
vine title, manifested his approbation. "Of whom, as 
concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God 
blessed forever." All the forced constructions of this 
text have not destroyed its natural and most obvious 
import. The Father himself bears testimony to the 
same truth. "Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O 
God, is forever and ever." The truth of this witness 
cannot safely be disputed. God said to Moses, "be- 
hold I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the 
way, and to bring thee into the place, which I have 
prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, pro- 
voke him not; for he will not pardon your transgres- 
sions; for my name is in him." This Angel was Christ; 
and God's name was in him. He is therefore called 
with propriety by the name, God. 

Those, who deny the Divinity of Christ, are neces- 
sitated to admit that he is called by this divine name; 
but they endeavor to evade the force of it by say- 



84 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

ing, that he is not called God to signify his divinrty; 
but only to express his high offices, and his delegated 
authority. This is mere assertion; and of course it 
requires only contradiction. To say that the name 
God, when applied to the Father, signifies divine na- 
ture, but when applied to the Son signifies something 
different, is asserting the very thing to be proved. 
There is as much evidence that Christ is divine, from 
the application of the name God to him, as there is 
that the Father is divine from the application of the 
same name to himself. If a certain name, attribute, 
or work will not prove Christ's divinity, the same 
name, attribute and work will not prove the Father's 
divinity. It ought to be admitted that what will prove 
the divine nature of the latter will also prove the 
divine nature of the former. 

Christ is called in the sacred scriptures the mighty 
God. He is also called the Almighty. The prophet 
Isaiah speaking of the Child, which would be born of 
a virgin, says, "his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counsellor, the Mighty God." This latter title is given 
to the one supreme God of Israel. If this name has 
any evidence in proof of his divine nature, it has equal 
evidence in proof of the divine nature of Christ. In 
the Apocalypse it is written, "I am Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which 
is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. 
It has been objected that this text does not apply to 
the Son, but to the Father. But the text, viewed in 
connexion with what precedes and what follows it, 
was evidently spoken by Christ, and applied to himself. 

Another name given to Christ is everlasting Father. 
When the word Father is applied to Christ it is not 
to be considered of the same import as it is when ap- 
plied to him, whom Christ calls his Father, and we 
call our Father. He does not sustain a paternal rela- 
tion to himself, nor to the human family. The word 
father in the sacred scriptures has different significa- 
tions, and it is used in various senses. It signifies one 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 85 

who has children; it signifies the author or inventor of 
a thing; an instructor; a ruler, a desire. In all these 
senses Christ may be called a Father, either figura- 
tively or literally. He is the Author of salvation. He 
is an Instructor. He taught the world a system of re- 
ligion. He is a Ruler. He is frequently styled a King. 
He has a kingdom. He is a Desire. He is called the 
desire of nations. He is much to be desired; for he 
is much needed. The original words, translated ever- 
lasting Father, might more naturally be rendered, 
Father of eternity (-jm ON") ^^' s naturally expres- 
ses his eternal existence. 

Christ is called King of glory, Lord of glory, and 
God of glory. No terms could be selected, which 
could express in a higher degree the glory of Christ. 
The glory of the Father cannot be represented by 
language in a brighter light. 

Christ is styled King of kings and Lord of lords. 
The same titles are applied by the apostle to God the 
Father. "Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the 
King of kings and Lord of lords." These names imply 
that the Son hath dominion over the highest created 
powers, and that his authority is equal to that of the 
Father. As his titles are the same, there is no evi- 
dence from this source that his authority is inferior. 

Another name given to Christ, is true God. "We 
are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. 
This is the true God and eternal life." At the time 
John wrote his epistles there was a sect which denied 
the divinity of the Savior, and maintained that he was 
merely a man. Another sect denied his humanity. In 
view of these heresies it appears that he designed to 
establish two points, that Jesus had come in the flesh, 
and that he was truly divine. With reference to those 
who denied the humanity of Christ, he said, "Hereby 
know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confess- 
eth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; 
and every spirit, that confesseth not that Jesus Christ 
is come in the flesh, is not of God. It appears impos- 



86 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

sible that language could be used, which would be 
more decidedly against the two prevailing heresies of 
his day than this. What language could more clearly 
convey the idea of the real Deity of the Son than this 
declaration of John, "this is the true God?" Its con- 
nexion is so intimate with what is said of the Son, that 
attempts to evade its force are vain. Besides the ad- 
ditional appellation, "eternal life," is peculiar to the 
Son. 

God, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the 
heathen, styled himself Jehovah. This name denotes 
independent existence. The Jews had this name in 
such superstitious veneration that they would not pro- 
nounce it in private or public worship; nor would they 
pronounce it when reading the scriptures. The ob- 
servations of a certain Jewish Rabbi upon the word 
Jehovah are pertinent and forcible. Treating on the 
names or attributes, which the prophets ascribe to 
God, he observes, "All the names of the most High, 
which are found in the books (i. e. of the bible) are 
derived from his actions; and that, which has no de- 
rivation in it is only one, i. e. the Tetragrammaton, 
which is appropriated to the most High only; there- 
fore it is called a declared name, which signifieth the 
very essence of the most High with clear demonstra- 
tion, in which there is no equal or partner with him. 
But the rest of his names, i. e. Judge, Mighty, Right- 
eous, Merciful, God, #*c. are all names, which declare 
the effects and derivation, &c. But the Tetragramma- 
ton name is unknown as yet as to its certain deriva- 
tion; and therefore it is attributed to him only." But 
even this name, which is significant of the divine es- 
sence, is applied to Christ. The prophet Jeremiah, 
in view of the advent of Christ, observes, "Behold the 
days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David 
a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and pros- 
per, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell 
safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 87 

Jehovah our righteousness." This prophecy is believ- 
ed generally to be applied to Christ. As this name 
is expressive of divine nature, it follows that Christ 
possesses divine nature, or the name was wrongly ap- 
plied. There are many other passages in which Christ 
is implicitly called Jehovah. Was it not Christ, who 
held intercourse with the Israelites in their departure 
from Egypt, and in the wilderness? Did he not make 
himself known to them by the name Jehovah; and did 
he not style himself, I am? 

To this it has been objected that the name Jeho- 
vah has been given to places and altars. Abraham 
called the place where he was about to offer his son 
Isaac Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will see or provide. 
After Moses had prevailed in battle against Amalek, 
by the special interposition of divine Providence, he 
erected an altar unto the Lord, and called the name 
of it Jehovah-nissi, the Lord, my banner. After Gideon 
had seen an angel and had holden converse with the 
Lord, he built an altar unto the Lord, and called it 
Jehovah-shalom, the Lord send peace. From the 
application of this divine name to inanimate things, it 
is inferred by some that the application of it to Christ 
does not imply his divinity; and that this name might 
appropriately be given him, if he were but a mere 
man. It ought to be considered that when the name 
Jehovah was given to those places, it was used with 
some qualifying addition; it was used not to express 
the nature of the place or thing, but to express some 
circumstance which was signalized by divine presence 
or agency. As the cases are not parallel, the objection 
loses its force. 

Another significant name given to Christ is Imman- 
uel. "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, 
and shall call his name Immanuel." This prophecy 
was fulfilled. A virgin brought forth a Son, and his 
name was Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God 
with us. The apostle Paul to the Corinthians saith, 
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," 



88 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

Christ saith, "the Father is in me." No language 
could more clearly prove that divinity was united to 
the man, Christ Jesus. But it is objected that this 
divine name is applied to Christ in no other sense than 
divine names were formerly applied to places and 
things. It has been said that when divine names were 
given to places and things they did not, neither were 
they designed to, express their nature or qualities; but 
they expressed the manifestation of divine presence, 
or some divine interposition. When Jacob had seen 
the vision of the ladder and angels ascending and de- 
scending, he was afraid and said, "surely the Lord is 
in this place." From this circumstance he called the 
name of the place Bethel, which signifies house of God. 
After Jacob had wrestled with a man and prevailed 
and obtained his blessing, he called the name of the 
place Peniel; and he gives this reason, "I have seen 
God face to face." Peniel signifies face of God. These 
distinguished places were not divine, because they had 
received names, made up in part of the divine name; 
neither did they receive these names because they 
were divine. But these names were given them 
because God was there. The name Immanuel was 
not given to the child of Mary, because that child was 
divine, (for it was not) but because God was there; 
because the divine Son was in the child. Allowing 
the objection to have all its force, it serves to prove 
that divinity was united with the humanity of Jesus 
Christ. 

The name, Lord God of hosts, is applied to Christ. 
The prophet, adverting to the wrestling of Jacob with 
the angel, said, "By his strength he had power with 
God; yea, he had power over the Angel and prevailed; 
he wept and made supplication unto him; he found 
him in Bethel and there he spake with us. Even the 
Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial." The 
original words translated Lord God signify Jehovah 
God. God declared to Moses, "this is my name forever, 
and this is my memorial unto all generations." Jacob 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 89 

called the Angel with whom he wrestled God, This 
Angel was undoubtedly Christ. Consequently his 
name is Lord God; or more properly Jehovah God. 

Those, who deny the divinity of Christ contend that 
divine names have been frequently given to men. The 
Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee a god 
unto Pharaoh. When God gave laws to Israel he 
commanded him saying, "Thou shalt not revile the 
gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." The apos- 
tle Paul acknowledges that there be that are called 
gods, for there be lords many and gods many. It is 
true some divine names have been given to men and 
things. But all divine names have not been given to 
them. The unqualified name Jehovah was never 
given to any man or place. No created being is called 
in the scriptures mighty God, Lord God, true God, 
great God, God over all blessed forever more, Almigh- 
ty, Lord of glory, King of kings, Lord of lords, Alpha 
and Omega, Lord God of hosts. But these names, 
without any qualification, without any intimation that 
they are to be understood in a reduced sense, are 
given to Christ. God, by his apostle saith he has given 
him a name, which is above every name. If no other 
divine names were given to Christ but those, which 
have been given to men, there would be some ground 
for denying that his names prove his divinity. But 
other and higher titles are given to him. The same 
exalted names, which were given to the one God of 
Israel are given to him. If these names do any thing 
toward proving the divinity of Israel's GcJ, they do 
the same toward proving the divinity of Christ. If 
the divine names have no meaning, they are useless. If 
they have an unappropriate meaning, they are worse 
than useless; they lead to error. 

"What is his name and what is his Son's name?" 
The manner of this question implies that it is equally 
difficult to give a fully characteristic name to one, as 
to the other. The names of the Father and the Son 
are significant and characteristic; but thev do not con- 
12 



90 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

vey to our finite minds adequate ideas of the divine 
nature, nor of the mode of divine subsistence. God 
has not left himself without witness, nor his Son with- 
out witness that he is God. When the magicians 
wrought, or feigned to work miracles in imitation of 
those, which God wrought by the hand of Moses, 
God was pleased to give a visible superiority to his 
own miracles, that it might appear that the power 
was of God. So when God suffered his creatures to be 
called by divine titles, to prevent misapprehension of 
the nature and dignity of his Son, he gave him decid- 
edly superior titles; he gave him a name, which is 
above every name.* 

*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
was <iod. John 1:1. It appears that one design of John in writing his Gospel 
was to confute the heresies, which had sprung up in the churches. The most 
prominent of which were those of the Docetse, and the Ebionites. The former 
believed the divinity of Christ, but denied his humanity. They maintained that 
he had a body only in appearance; that he did not actually suffer and die; that 
he only seemed to do those things; which were related of him. The latter admitted 
the history of Jesus was founded on reality; but they denied his divinity. ''For 
the most part looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, born of Mary and her hus- 
band, though a man of a most excellent character." "The opinions of the 
Docetse, on the one hand, and of the Corinthians on the other," (who were nearly 
coincident with the Ebionites) concerning the person and offices of Christ, make 
it probable that the apostles taught, and that the first Christians believed Christ 
to be both God and man. For if the Docetse had not been taught the divinity 
of Christ, they had no temptation to deny his humanity. And if the Corinthians 
had not been taught the humanity of Christ, they would have been under no 
necessity of denying his divinity." (See Mosheim's Eccles. hist. Milner's Chh. 
hist. Macknight's pret". to the 1st Epis. of John.) In opposition to these here- 
sies St. John positively declared that the Word was God; and that the Word 
was made flesh. 

By some it is denied that John used the word Logos to signify Christ; but 
admit, tbat if the Logos were Christ, it would prove his divinity, hi the revela- 
tion of St. John he is called the Word of God. There is a peculiar significancy 
in calling him the Word, or the Word of God. For as words are the medium 
of conveying thought, so Christ was the med ; um of conveying the will of God to 
man. When The Evangelist asserts that the Word was made flesh, it appears 
to be proved as clearly as language can prove it, that the Word was Christ. 
Wheu he asserts that this Word was Cod, it appears equally clear that Christ is 
truly divine. If the Evangelist had designed to express his divinity in an inferior 
sense, he would undoubtedly have employed some qualifying term. But as he 
did not, we are not authorized to make the addition. The absence of the article 
before 0«j in this place does not affect its meaning. 

After St. John had represented the Word existing in the beginning; existing 
with Gad; and asserted that it was God, he adds, "The Word was made 
ryiKTO or became flesh. By this assertion he did not mean that the nature of 
the Word was changed into the nature of flesh. He undoubtedly meant that 
the Word appeared in the likeness of flesh. "God sending Ins own Son in the 
likeness of sinful flesh — God sent forth his own Son, tnude of a -woman. Who 
buing in the form of God, — took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
in the likrsness of met." The phraseology of John, and also of the apostle, in 
the quotations just made, naturally conveys the idea that the Word existed sepa- 
rate from, and before the flesh. 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 91 

The translation, "The Word was flesh" (see the Improved Version of the New 
Testament) purporting that it was a mere man, savors more of a preconceived 
opinion, than of a correct knowledge of the Greek. Previous to this declaration, 
the Evangelist had used the verb nv nine times and uniformly to express simple, 
past existence. He had used the verb eya/ito and its inflexions six times to convey 
the idea of something made or done. If he had designed to convey no other idea 
than, the Word was flesh, he would undoubtedly have used the verb uv, as he had 
done, to express past existence. On the other hand, if he designed, by connect- 
ing the terms, the Word and flesh by a copula, to convey an idea that something 
was made or done, he undoubtedly would have used the same verb, which he 
had used in that signification. If, after having used this verb uniformly in one 
sense, he should, without giving the least notice, use it in a different sense, he 
would mislead, rather than rightly direct his readers. It appears therefore that 
the translation in our Bible is correct. The Word was made flesh. 

The verb lyzytro in the New Testament is sometimes translated -was. But it 
is presumable that it is not synonymous with w, which precisely corresponds 
with our English verb, was. In John 1:6, eyeviro is translated was. "There was 
a man sent from God." It would be a literal translation, and agreeable to the 
translation of the verb in many other places in the New Testament, to render 
the passage thus, it came to pass a man was sent from God. It could not be the 
design of the Evangelist in using the verb eywro to declare the existence of the 
man, who was sent from God. The declaration that he was sent, implied his 
existence; eymro is translated was, in Luke 24:19, "Concerning Jesus of Naz- 
areth, which was a prophet." It is worthy of remark, that this was the lan- 
guage of a disciple after the crucifixion; that he was disappointed in his expecta- 
tions; that, although he had heard of the resurrection of Jesus, he did not under- 
stand it. In this state of disappointment and grief; not knowing with whom he 
was travelling; not knowing to what disgrace and danger he might be exposed, if 
he attributed divinity to his crucified Master, he diffidently and cautiously said, 
os eytvero ctvug Trgotymats. Literally -translated it is, who was made a man prophet. 

"The Word was made flesh." The next clause illustrates this. "And dwelt 
(ecrx-waio-iv) among us." According to the original word the Logos dwelt as in a 
tent among us; i. e. he occupied human nature, the man Christ Jesus. 

My Lord and my God. John 20:28. These words of Thomas, addressed to 
Christ, appear not to be a» ellipsis, as some have maintained, but an exclamation; 
an exclamation of such a kind that it amounts to a confession that Christ was his 
Lord and God. It is in vain to object that Kugio; and ©so?, are in the nominative 
case. For the nominative is frequently used lor the vocative. When Christ on 
the cross addressed the Father, he addressed him in the nominative case, 
b Sio; /uov, o Sios[jt.ov, as it is recorded by St. Mark. The LXX use the nominative 
for the vocative. The great advantage of considering the words of Thomas au 
ellipsis is, that people may complete the sentence so as to favor their own 
system. 

Whose are the fathers, a?id of whom as concerning the fie sh Christ came, who 
is over all, God blessed for ever. Rom. 9:5. If the received text be genuine; if 
the construction and pointing of this passage be correct, it offers its aid to prove 
the doctrine of Christ's divinity. He descended from the fathers, according to 
the fie sh; he "was made, (or born) of the seed of David, according to the flesh.'" 
This mode of expression intimates that he had another nature, according to 
which he did not descend from the fathers, or from the seed of David. VVho 
in this passage, relates to Christ; and he is over, or above, all. God is in appo- 
sition with Christ. The term blessed, which is applied to the Father, is applied 
to him. 

But this text has suffered the same fate with many others, which teach the 
same doctrine. It is maintained that many copies want Bios. "Some, there- 
fore, may have inferred, that this text cannot fairly be adduced in support oi the 
Trinitarian scheme; and yet the received reading is confirmed by all the manu- 
scripts, which have been hitherto collated; by all the ancient versions; and by 
all the fathers, except Cyprian, in the printed copies, and also Hilary and Leo, 
who, according to Griesbach, have each of them once referred to this text with- 
out noticing 620c. Whence the notion arose that 6u>s is wanting in many MSS. 
I am not able to discover. There is scarcely a verse in the New Testament, in 
which ancient authorities more nearly agree." (Middleton on the Greek Ar- 



92 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

tide.) The passage under consideration has been transposed and pointed in such 
a manner that it imports a doxology to the Father. But this transposition offends 
against ihs idiom of the Greek language; against the usage of the LXX. and of 
the writers of the New Testament. ^See Middleton in loco.) 

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever By some it is supposed that the 
Psalm, from which the apostle quoted this passage, was composed in celebration, 
of Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter. This Psalm is entitled, "A 
song of loves." It is not probable that David would have composed a song upon 
his son's love for strange women; women, with whom he was forbidden to have 
connexion. If he had made this the subject of his song, he could nardly have 
said, "My heart is inditing a good matter." In this view of his son, he would not 
probably have addressed him by the title, "O God." Besides, Solomon's king- 
dom lasted but forty years. It could not, therefore, be said to be "for ever and 
ever." It was permanent but partially in the line of his posterity; for ten tribes 
revolted from his son, and did not return^ In view of his strange loves, which 
■were prohibited by divine authority, the Psalmist would not probably have said, 
"thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity." 

The Psalm was undoubtedly applied to the Messiah; for it appears to be ap- 
plicable only to him. The quotation, which the apostle makes from it, he applies 
to the Son. In the beginning of his Epistle to the Hebrews, he contrasts the 
Son with the angels; and to give him the preference, to give him an infinite 
superiority, he applies to him a part of the 45th Psalm. "Unto the Son he 
saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Tin re is no danger in apply- 
ing this declaration as the apostle applied it, notwithstanding the ingenious criti- 
cisms of the learned. 

Some critics have given to the passage under consideration a translation, essen- 
tially different from our English version. "God is thy throne for ever and ever. 
The everlasting God is thy throne." But neither the scope of the apostle's 
discourse, nor the phraseology, which he used, favors this translatien. He was 
setting forth the superior excellence and dignity of the Son. After represent- 
ing angels as servants, it was necessary, to make the contrast, to represent the 
Son having authority. But if he designed to attribute to him only a limited or del- 
egated authority; that God, not himself, supported his throne, where would be 
the superiority of Christ above them; for they have a limited, a delegated au- 
thority? When it is brought into one view, that the Son hath inherited a more 
excellent name than they; that the angels of God are commanded to worship 
him; that in the beginning he laid the foundation of the earth, and that the 
heavens are the works of his hands; that he is the same, and that his years shall 
not fail, it would be an unhappy descent in the description to assign him a throne, 
which he could not support himself; a throne, which he did not inherit, which 
he did not occupy by light. 

'O 6so? being in the nominative case does not justify the improved version of 
the text. For the LXX often use the nominative for the vocative; and it was 
from them the apostle made the quotation. The Atticks used the same manner 
of writing. If throne was the predicate of the verb, it would, aceording to the 
rules of Greek criticism, want the article. But as it has the article prefixed, 
there is evidence that it is the subject of the verb; and that the common English 
Version is correct. The application of this text to Solomon; the unnatural 
transposition of its parts; and the unfounded criticisms, which have been made 
upon it, give evidence that the cause is desperate, which requires such means 
for its support. 

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, 
that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his 
Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life; I John 5:'20. The 
most natural reference of the pronoun this, is to Jesus Christ in the preceding 
sentence. It is a general rule that the demonstrative pronoun refers to the 
nearest antecedent. But there is sometimes a departure from this rule when a 
more remote antecedent is the principal suhjf ct; and a reference to it is so visible 
in the sense that it occasions no ambiguity. But this exception does not apply 
to the text under consideration. The Son of God is the leading and most prom- 
inent subject. Neither the sense, nor the nature of the subject would warrant a 
departure from the general rule in this instance, u; less it be first assumed thai 
Jesus Christ is not divine, the very point to be proved. 



DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO. CHRIST. 93 



The terms used in the text, viewed in connexion with other parts of the Epis« 
tie, favor the opinion that they are applied to the Son of God There is no 
small degree of evidence that the phrase, him that is true, signifies Christ. At 
the time John wrote, there were false teachers. They represented Christ very 
differently from what he really was These he calls antichrist; and gives a cau- 
tion to try their spirit. After describing the errors which then prevailed, and 
shewing how they might be detected, he observed at the close of his first Epistle, 
that Jesus Christ had come; that he had given them an understanding (J iuvoix) 
i. fe. knowledge, or the means of knowing him that is true; of distinguishing the 
true Christ from false ones; that by signs and wonders, by doctrine and life, he 
gave such evidence that he was the true Messiah that they needed not to be de- 
ceived. "We are in him that is true" This manner of expression is applied 
elsewhere to Christ. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." ''Put 
ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." The figure of the vine and the branches implies 
that the members of Christ are in him Besides, Jesus applies to himself the 
terms true and truth. The additional clause, "in his Son Jesus Christ," appear* 
to be explanatory of the two preceding, viz. "in him that is true." 

"This is rhe true Ged and eternal life." Life and eternal life are titles often 
given to Christ. ! n the beginning of the Epistle John calls him "the Word of 
life, the Life, eternal Life " When it is considered that he applies this title to 
him in the beginning of his letter, it is presumable, at least, that at the close, he 
applies the same title to the same personage. Of Christ it is said, "In him was 
life, and the Life was the light of men. I am the resurrection and the Life. 
God hath given to us eternal Life; and this Life is in his Son." These eviden- 
ces appear to be conclusive that the title, true God in the text, is applied to the 
Son. 

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Im-> 
manuel; [saiah 7:14. Perhaps this prophecy in its primary application was 
fulfilled soon after its delivery by a person, born in an extraordinary manner; 
who delivered Judah from his threatening enemies; and, for the remarkable in- 
terposition of divine Providence attending him, was called Immanuel. If such 
an application of the text be correct, it is admitted that the name is appropriate; 
that God was with his people by qualifying him for their deliverance. But this 
concession does not militate against the application of this prophecy in a secon- 
dary and higher sense. The successor of Moses was called Joshua; (the same 
in the original as Jesus;) and the name was appropriate. But who doubts that 
the name Jesus, when given to the Son of God, is of a higher and more impor- 
tant meaning? 

There is evidence that the prophecy, under consideration, was ultimately 
applied to Christ, because St. Matthew, in giving the history of his nativity ap- 
plies it to him. "Now all this was done," (says the Evangelist) "that it mi$rht 
he fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a 
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and shall call his name 
Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us." Not a little exertion 
lias been used to shew that this part of St. Matthew's account of Christ is spuri- 
ous But as no proof has been produced to this effect, it is not presumptuous to 
offer it in support of the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It is a matter of surprise 
that texts to this effect should, more than any others, be charged with spurious- 
ness, with incorrect readings and incorrect versions. Should the charge be sup- 
ported against St. Matthew, a similar difficulty will be found in St. Luke's gos- 
pel. He states the miraculous conception of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Though 
he does not say that this event is a fulfilment of the prophet's prediction; yet, 
according to his account of the matter, it was no tess a fulfilment, than if he had 
declared it to be so. If God was with his people, when he sent them deliverers, 
■who rescued them from temporal evils, more specially was he with them when 
he united himself in a peculiar manner with human nature, and delivered them 
by his own hand from spiritual enemies, from the bondage of sin. 

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Gad 
and our Savior Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13. Through the righteousness of God 
and our Savior Jesus Christ; 2 Peter 1 :1. There are several other passages in 
the Epistles, in which the name God and Jesus Christ have a similar eonnexion. 
If the second noun (Savior) were not in apposition with the first (God) or an 
attributive of the same article, it would have an article before itself. But as it 
has not, ii is inferred that it is a predicate of the article, which stands before 



94 DIVINE NAMES GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

God; and of course the title, Great God, is given in this text to Jesus Christ. 
The rules of Greek criticism are so well established that this conclusion is 
drawn with confidence. See Middleton on the Greek Article. In the second 
text quoted, there appears to be additional evidence that God and the Savior 
Jesus Christ are the same. Peter directs his salutation to those, who had ob- 
tained like precious faith with themselves through the righteousness of God. 
Righteousness in this sense and application is repeatedly attributed to Christ; 
but it is presumed that it is not so applied to the Father exclusively. It is 
through the righteousness, i. e. the obedience and sufferings of Christ that people 
receive any Christian grace. 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST, 



Who being....the express image of his person. Heb, 
1:3. This is predicted of the Son, Jesus Christ, in 
relation to God the Father. The original is some- 
what more expressive. It signifies that he is the 
character of his (i. e. God's) substance. 

All that is known of the nature of a thing is by its 
qualities. One class of beings is distinguished from 
another by its different properties. Human nature is 
known by its distinguishing qualities. Divine nature 
is known in the same manner. What has human qual- 
ities is human nature; and what has divine qualities 
is divine nature. If it can be shewn that Jesus Christ 
possesses divine qualities, it consequently follows that 
he possesses divine nature. 

Although Christ possessed human nature; yet there 
is evidence from the inspired writings that he possessed 
a nature, which distinguished him from a mere man. 
Paul, in his salutation to the Galatians, begins thus: 
"Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by mcm,'but by 
Jesus Christ." He inquires, "Do I seek to please 
men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the 
servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that 
the gospel which was preached of me, is not after 
man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I 
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." The 
apostle makes a plain distinction between Christ and 
a man or men. He is therefore understood ascribing 
to him a nature, which they had not. 



96 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

The sacred scriptures ascribe eternity to the Lord 
Jesus. After the apostasy God held intercourse with 
man, through the medium of his Son. The voice of 
the Lord God, whom Adam heard walking in the 
garden, was the Son. It was the Son, who made the 
covenant with Abraham. It was the Son, who ap- 
peared unto Jacob; changed his name, and blessed 
him. It was the Son, who led Israel out of Egypt; 
conducted them through the Red Sea; guided and 
supported them in the wilderness; and led them to 
the land of promise. All the divine appearances and 
communications, which are mentioned in the Old Tes- 
tament, were made by the Son of God. If these 
exhibitions of himself do not prove his eternity, they 
prove that he had existence before he was conceived 
by his mother Mary. It proves that he was more 
than mere humanity. 

Christ saith of himself, "before Abraham was I am." 
He prayed to the Father, saying, "Glorify thou me 
with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with 
thee, before the world was." Solomon, personifying 
Wisdom, which is generally understood to be Christ, 
says, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his 
way, before his works of old. . I was set up from 
everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him." 
In these texts is conveyed the idea not only of his 
pre-existence, but also of his eternal existence. His 
being by him, as one brought up with him, easily con- 
veys the idea of two, who bad always lived together; 
and upon equal terms. When Christ appeared unto 
John in Patmos, he styled himself, "Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, 
and which is to come, the first and the last." This 
title was given to God by his prophet; and if it is an 
evidence of his eternal existence, it affords the same 
evidence of the eternal existence of the Son Jesus 
Christ. The prophet, in view of the birth of Christ, 
makes this address to the place of his nativity. "Thou 






DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 97 

Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among 
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, 
whose goings forth have been from of old, from ever- 
lasting." This text is clearly applied to Christ. It 
mentions his coming forth, which would be at his 
birth. It mentions also his goings forth, which had 
been of old, from everlasting. This reduplication of 
time, according to the nature of the Hebrew language, 
clearly and forcibly conveys the idea of his eternity. 
Christ is the express image, or character of the divine 
nature, or substance. His nature is, of course, divine, 
and his attributes are divine. It is absurd to suppose 
that the character of divinity should be ascribed to 
Christ, and he be not divine; or that he should pos- 
sess some divine attributes, and not others. If he be 
the character of divine existence, he is of course 
eternal. 

The title Jehovah, is repeatedly given to Christ. 
This name signifies self-existence. What is self-exist- 
ent had no eause nor origin of its existence; and of 
course must always have existed. If the name Jeho- 
vah is rightly applied to Christ, it implies his eternal 
existence. 

The sacred scriptures ascribe immutability to 
Christ. This is a divine attribute. Whatever has 
been created is subject to change by the same power, 
which created it. But he, that is not subject to 
change, exists without a cause, and of course is divine. 
The apostle Paul to the Hebrews is clear and deci- 
sive on this point. "Thou Lord in the beginning, hast 
laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are 
the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but 
thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a 
garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and 
thy years shall not fail" The apostle made this ad- 
dress to Christ; and it as decisively proves his divinity, 
as the same description proves the divinity of the one 
13 



08 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

true God, when applied to him by the Psalmist. Paul 
to the Hebrews says, "Jesus Christ, the same yester- 
day, to-day, and forever." This mode of speaking, 
expresses duration past, the present time, and dura- 
tion to come. As he is the same, in the past, present, 
and future time, he changcth not. 

Christ has been manifested to the world in various 
manners. To Jacob he appeared in the form of a 
man. To Moses he appeared in, or in the likeness 
of, a burning bush. To the Israelites he appeared in, 
or in the form of, a pillar of cloud, and a pillar of fire. 
After his incarnation he appeared in human form, in 
the form of a servant. Since his resurrection he is 
united to a spiritual body; and is seated on the right 
hand of divine Majesty. His appearances were differ- 
ent at different times; and his state of humiliation 
appeared very different from his state of exaltation. 
But these appearances made no alteration in his nature. 
He was no less Cod in the man Christ Jesus, than he 
was on the right hand of God the Father. His power 
was not less when he was in the hands of men, and 
was condemned, or when his body was under the 
dominion of death, than it was when he created the 
Avorld. All the adventitious circumstances, which 
attended him while he was upon earth, produced no 
change in his nature or attributes. 

The scriptures attribute omnipresence to Christ. 
The Lord Jesus, when he was upon earth, said, "No 
man hath ascended up to "heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is 
in heaven." This implies that he was in heaven at 
the same time he was upon earth. ■ After Christ was 
received up into heaven, his apostles "went forth and 
preached every where, the Lord working with them" 
At this time he sat on the right hand of God. But 
he was present with them, otherwise he could not 
have wrought with them. "Where two or three are 
met together in my name, (said Christ) there am I in 
the midst of them." Jesus said unto his disciples, 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 99 

"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." These are individual instances of Christ's 
presence on earth, while he is in heaven. If these 
instances do not prove his universal presence, it proves 
his presence to a great extent. If his presence is 
extended to a great proportion of his creatures, there 
is no reason why it should not be extended to all. By 
him all things were created, and by him all things 
consist, i. e. are supported. His presence must have 
been as extensive as his works; and it must now be 
as extensive as that influence of his, which upholds all 
things. It is true, all this only proves his presence to 
be as extensive as the works of creation. The scrip- 
tures cannot prove the presence of God the Father 
to be more extensive. It is not important to prove 
that divine presence is where nothing feels its influ- 
ence, nor beholds its glory. 

There is abundant evidence from scripture that 
Christ is omniscient. The apostle Paul says he is 
before all things. Whether he be before all things in 
respect to duration or dignity, or in respect to both, 
he undoubtedly has a capacity for this extent of knowl- 
edge. As he made all things, he perfectly knows 
their natures, and the effects, which would arise from 
any particular combination of things. As he is omni- 
present he knows all events, which take place. Noth- 
ing is concealed from his view. The word of inspira- 
tion confirms this sentiment. His disciples said unto 
him, "Now we are sure that thou knowest all things, 
and needest not that any man should ask thee." When 
Peter was interrogated concerning his love toward 
his divine Master, he replied, "Lord, thou knowest all 
things." Jesus did not commit himself unto them; 
because he knew all men; and needed not that any 
should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. 
Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were, that 
believed not. When prayer was made to the Lord 
Jesus for direction in filling a place among the apostles, 
which had been vacated by Judas, he was addressed 



100 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

thus: "Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew 
whether of these two thou hast chosen," "The 
Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper 
than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the divid- 
ing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and 
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents 
of the heart. Neither is there any creature, that is 
not manifest in his sight." Christ, sending word by 
his servant John, unto the church in Thyatira, says, 
"all the churches shall know that I am he, which 
searcheth the reins and hearts." To these may be 
added another testimony "In whom (i. e. Christ) are 
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 
The sacred scriptures do not ascribe a greater extent 
of knowledge to God the Father. The office of 
Mediator between God and man, which Christ sus- 
tains, renders it necessary that his knowledge should 
be adequate to the work. If he was not perfectly 
acquainted with his Father's will, he would not be 
capacitated to treat, in his stead, with the human 
race. If he was not perfectly acquainted with the 
thoughts, desires, and conditions of the human race, 
he would not be capacitated to mediate between them 
and their offended Sovereign. He needs to be per- 
fectly acquainted with both parties, in order to fill the 
Mediator's office. In addition to this, he has a knowl- 
edge of all the works of his hand; and of course he 
possesses the highest degree of knowledge which 
can be conceived. 

But there are texts of scripture which appear to 
limit his knowledge; and these texts have been eagerly 
used for the purpose of robbing Christ of his divine 
nature. Christ saith, "I do nothing of myself; but as 
my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." 
From this it is inferred that he derives his knowledge 
from the instruction of his heavenly Father. In this 
discourse with the Jews, Jesus taught them his union 
with the Father, and his subordination to him. He 
taught them that he was not alone; that his Father 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 101 

was with him, and that he acted in perfect coinci- 
dence with his will. In the same manner that he 
was from God, so was his knowledge from God, or he 
was taught of God. The scriptures represent perfect 
order, subordination and agreement subsisting in the 
Trinity, in the work of redemption. If it is the 
place of the Son to do his Father's will, it is proper 
to say the Father teaches, or communicates to him 
his will. This appears to be a correct method in 
official transactions, although the Son knew all his 
Father's purposes. It is true Christ knoweth nothing 
of himself, and he doeth nothing of himself. He is in 
concert with the Father; and the Father is with him 
in all his operations. The order of offices justifies 
the mode of expression, which gives priority to one, 
and posteriority to the other. 

Christ speaking of the day of judgment says, "Of 
that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
Father." From this text has been inferred the limited 
knowledge of the Son. It has been suggested that 
so much of this text as relates to the Son was an 
interpolation by the Arians. But it is not necessary 
to make this resort in order to explain the passage 
consistently with the omniscience of the Son. There 
are various passages, in which Christ expresses his 
inferiority to the Father; and there are various other 
passages, in which he expresses his equality with the 
Father. It is impossible to account for this difference 
of representations of himself without admitting the 
union of two natures, the human and divine. He 
might speak of his humanity in a limited degree. He 
might also speak of his divinity in an unlimited degree; 
and in both instances adhere to the truth. In his 
capacity as Son of man he might not know the time 
of the day of judgment; but as Son of God he might 
have a perfect knowledge of it. It is reasonable to 
suppose that he, who is to raise the dead and pass 
sentence upon them, should foreknow the day of these 



102 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

important events. It can be said with truth that man 
is mortal. It can be said with equal truth that he is 
immortal. Our Lord said at a certain time, "Now / 
am no more in the world." Again he said, "Ye have 
the poor always with you, but rneye have not always" 
In another place he says, "Lo I am with you always." 
The fact was, his bodily presence was soon to be 
removed from them; but his spiritual presence was 
to be continued. Of course, what he denied respect- 
ing his humanity he might with propriety and sincerity 
assert respecting his divinity. If he could make this 
distinction in one point of view, there is no reason why 
he might not make the same distinction in another 
point of view. This mode of speaking did not prob- 
ably convey distinct ideas to the minds of his disciples. 
He often taught them in obscure figures. He did not 
design to make a full revelation of himself till after 
his resurrection. A full disclosure of himself while 
he was upon earth would have had a tendency to 
frustrate the object of his coming into the world. 
"We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the 
hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world 
unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world 
knew; for had they known it, they would not have cru- 
cified the Lord of glory." 

Goodness or holiness is attributed, in an eminent 
degree to Christ, in the sacred scriptures. In his 
incarnate state he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, sep- 
arate from sinners. He did no sin, neither was guile 
found in his mouth." The object of his coming into 
the world and the works, which he performed while 
he was upon earth, indicated, in the highest degree, 
the holiness of his nature. If it was an act of divine 
goodness to create the world; form man upright and 
place him in paradise, it was an act of equal goodness 
to make a propitiation for sin; to pay a ransom for 
sinners; and to prepare mansions for them in Paradise 
above. Those particular acts of goodness, which 
characterize the nature of God, are also ascribed to 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 103 

Christ. Is God called merciful? Of the Son it is said, 
"Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto 
eternal life." Is God, called gracious? Of Christ it 
is said, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is 

f rations." Is God called long-suffering? The apostle 
'aul says, "I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus 
Christ might shew forth all long-suffering." Js right- 
eousness ascribed to God? Christ is called the right- 
eous Judge; the Lord our righteousness. It is by 
his righteousness that sinners are justified. St. John 
heard the angel say, "Thou art righteous O Lord." 

When the rich young man addressed Christ by the 
title, good Master, he seemed to check him by saying, 
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but 
One, that is God." By this interrogation, and asser- 
tion, Christ did not design to deny his claim to good- 
ness, not even to divine goodness. It appears that 
the young man was not apprehensive that Christ was 
divine; that he viewed him only as a man of more 
than ordinary endowments; that he viewed him as a 
prophet. According to the young man's apprehension 
of Christ he gave him a title higher than he deserved; 
though not higher than he really deserved. On this 
ground Christ made his reply. 

The Jews formed their ideas of God from the same 
titles, attributes, or characters, which are applied to 
Christ. If they had evidence from this source that 
there was a God, there is the same evidence that 
Christ is God. Had only a single divine title or attri- 
bute been ascribed to Christ, there would have been 
ground to suspect that they were applied to him figu- 
ratively, or applied to him as they have been applied 
to men. But when it is considered that all divine 
titles and attributes, except those which distinguish 
the Father from the Son, in their relationship or in 

their distinct offices, are applied to Christ, it is impos- 
sible to account for their just application without 
admitting that he is divine. It pleased the Father 

that in him should all fulness dwell. In him dwelt 



104 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He is the 
express image of his person; the very character of his 
substance. If there were no plurality in the divine 
nature, which is the ground of the distinctions, Father 
and Son, it appears to be improper to say that in him 
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead. If, on this 
principle, all divine fulness dwelt in him, there would 
be no ground for addressing divinity out of himself. 
There would be no ground of his addressing the 
Father. If the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in 
Christ, divine nature and divine attributes dwelt in 
him; otherwise, all the fulness of the Godhead did not 
dwell in him; he was not the character of divine nature. 

If God made communications to Christ as he did to 
the prophets, only in a greater degree, he would not 
possess one divine attribute. Divine fulness would 
not dwell in him. If there be no ground of distinction 
in the divine nature, and God should communicate 
his fulness to the man Christ Jesus, he would only 
change his condition, (if the expression may be allowed) 
but there would be no ground of distinction between 
the Father and the Son; nor would there be ground 
for one to address the other. It is absurd to say that 
Christ possesses divine attributes only in a limited 
degree. Divine attributes are infinite, or in the 
greatest possible degree. What is less is not divine. 
If this be not true, it is impossible to draw a line of 
distinction between human and divine attributes. 

As divine attributes are as clearly and. fully ascribed 
to the Son as they are to the Father; and as a nature 
is known only by its attributes, it follows that there 
is as clear evidence, from this source, of the divine 
nature of the Son, as of the Father.* 

* Who being the express image of his person. ;^a§:otT»ig t«c' Jtf"03-<r«ae«c 
ui/Tou. Heb. 1:3. These original words signify the c/niriicter of his substance. 
A character is an exact representation of the seal or stamp, which makes the 
impression. They are of the same dimensions; and they perfectly correspond 
in all their parts. According to the perfection of the former, so is the perfec- 
tion of the latter. If Christ represents the Father as a character represents its 
se:il, there is an exact correspondence bi tween them. They are of the same 
extent. Their attributes are correspondent, and of equal perfection. If Christ 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 105 

be of finite nature and finite properties, there is no proportion, there is no 
correspondence between him and the Father, who is of infinite perfection. If 
extraordinary powers were delegated to him, they would make no addition to 
his nature; and of course they would not make him the character, or exact 
likeness of the Father's substance. 

"Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58. We produce this text, not to prove 
the eternal existence of the Son, but to prove his pre-existence. Attempts 
have been made to evade even this proof from the text. It is contended that 
Christ did not design to convey an idea that he bad existence before Abraham, 
but that before his day he was appointed by the counsel of Heaven to the office 
of Messiah; that he was ordained to be the Christ. If this be the meaning of 
the text, he gave a very indirect answer to the question of the Jews. Their 
inquiry related to his age; and if his answer related to the time of his appoint- 
ment to office, there is not the least, connexion between the answer and the 
question. Rather than to suppose this prevarication, we would use the text 
according to its most easy and natural construction; that Christ was before 
Abraham. 

"Glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory, which I had with thee 
before the world was." John 17:5. This text is offered to prove Christ's pre- 
existence only. It is an unhappy evasion to say that this glory, which Christ 
once had with the Father, and for which he prayed, was a glory, which was 
reserved for him, which was in the Father's purpose and decree. It could not, 
with truth be said that he ever had a glory, which was only reserved or pur- 
posed for him. Besides, if he prayed for this degree of glory, he would pray 
only for a glory to be kept in reserve or purpose; for this, upon the present 
hypothesis, is the glory he had with the Father. 

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." 
Rev. 22:13. It is admitted by Unitarians that these are the words of Christ. 
The terms, first and last, are applied in the Old Testament to God. If these 
terms, when applied to him, express his eternal existence, they equally express 
the eternal existence of Christ, when applied to him. It is admitted that many 
words in the scriptures, which, according to their natural meaning, are taken in 
their greatest latitude, are restricted by their application. But there is no re- 
striction, or qualification intimated, when the terms first and last are applied to 
Christ. To say "they signify that Jesus Christ, is contemporary with the ear- 
liest and latest events in that dispensation, over which he has been ordained by 
the Almighty to preside," is begging the question. It is assuming that he had 
no authority, or that he did not preside over any thing till he commenced the 
dispensation of mercy with mankind. When the prophet Isaiah applies the same 
terms to the God of Israel, some captious critic might as well say, they signify 
that God is contemporary with the earliest and latest events of the Jewish dis- 
pensation. With such iicense, it would be impossible to prove one divine attri- 
bute of God the Father. 

"But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of 
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in 
Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. 
The original words standing for "shall he come forth," and "whose goings forth," 
are radically the same. It is contended that the first, signifies his birth at. Beth- 
lehem; and that "the last clause must therefore be understood thus: "-whose 
birth has been of old from everlasting;" i. e. "whose birth has been determined, 
or appointed from everlasting." Even though the expression, "goings forth" 
should be referred to an earlier period of our Lord's existence than his birth from 
the Virgin Mary, it must signify generation in some way or other, and 
therefore favors the Unitarian doctrine, that he had a begiiming, rather than 
the orthodox opinion of his eternity." (See Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism.) 

This learned author makes the assumption, that the phrase, "shall he come 
forth," signifies his natural birth. The original word does not necessarily 
signify birth. It is sometimes applied to it. But it is also "applied to the pro- 
ductions of the earth, or of vegetables; to the solar lights going forth upon the 
earth; so to the stellar lights, to the springing, or coming forth of waters; to 
come or go forth, or out, in almost any manner." (See Park. Heb. Lex. on the 
word.) "Out of thee" i. e. Bethlehem, "shall he come forth to me." However 
common the supposition may be, it is hard to conceive that Christ's coming 
forth out of the city Bethlehem to his Father, should signify his natural 

14 



106 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

birth. But if this supposition were correct, and the latter phrase, "his goings 
forth,'" signified the same thing, the inference would be, that he had a natural? 
birth before he was born of Mary. As the latter phrase is in the plural number, 
it would follow that he had hail several natural births beiore that time. I he 
learned author, however, only infers that "it must signify generation in some 
■way or other." But this is making the conclusion broader than the premises. 
To apply the first phrase to his natural birth, and the latter to an unintelligible 
generation, is neither agreeable to sound logic, nor to the rules of strict criti- 
cism. The LXX did not understand, by the original terms, any kindot birth or 
generation. If we understand the terms according to their natural and true 
import, as they stand in our translation, we shall find that he, who came torth 
from Bethlehem on his Father's business, had also gone forth from him, from of 
old, from everlasting. . 

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." Heb. 13:8. It is 
contended by some that Jesus Christ, in this text, is put for the doctrines which 
he taught; and that this text proves not the immutability of his nature; but only 
the immutability of his doctrines. It is admitted that his name is sometimes 
used to signify his religion. But it does uot follow from this that it is always 
used in this sense, or that it is so used in this passage. But if this were the 
true meaning of the text, it would afford some evidence of his immutability. 
If he be the Author and Supporter of an unchangeable religion; if his kingdom be 
of one nature, and his laws and administration be without essential variation, 
there is strong evidence that he hmself does not essentially change. If his de- 
signs are always the same, there is no reasonable doubt that he is always the 
same. In the former part of the epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle, after at- 
tributing the work of creation to the Son, asserts his immutability by the same 
terms, thou art the same (o at/Toe.) To speak of the visible changes, which 
Christ sustained during his humiliation is mere evasion. It is to speak of the 
mutability of his humanity, which all admit. 

«'No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, 
even the Son of man, which is in heaven." John 3:13. Trinitarian commen- 
tators are not agreed in their explanations of this text. It appea s, however, that 
the first clause cannot be understood literally. For Enoch and Elijah were taken, 
up bodily into heaven. The connexion of this text authorizes a belief that Christ, 
by his declaration, "no man hath ascended up to heaven," designed to shew 
that no person beside himself was fully acquainted with the counsel of heaven. 
He positively asserted that he spoke what he knew, and testified what he had 
seen. He knew and he had seen what mere man never knew nor saw. If the first 
part of the text is understood figuratively, there is no necessity of understand- 
ing the second clause in this manner. Other texts, without the appearance of a 
figure, assert that he came down from heaven. Christ himself says, "I came 
down from heaven." The Jews understood him to speak literally; for they said, 
"is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know, how is 
it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" The apostle Paul, speaking 
of Christ's ascension, saith, "now that he ascended, what is it but that he also 
descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the 
same also, that ascended up far above all heavens." 

The latter part of the text, "the Son of man, who is in heaven," naturally 
conveys the idea that he, who had descended from heaven, and was then speak, 
ing, was *lso in heaven. This construction is easy, if it be admitted that divinity 
■was united with the Son of man. If this union be denied it is difficult to explain 
this passage. 

"They went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, 
and confirming the word with signs following," Mark 16:20. "Where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," 
Mat. 18:80. "Lo. Ian/with you alway, even unto the end of the world," Matt. 
28:20 A learned Unitarian, (see Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism, p. 225,) 
admits that these texts "prove, that he was virtually present with his disciples, 
to guard, comfort, and assist them in their apostolic labors." To prove his om- 
nipresence, he considers it necessary to shew that his substance is extended 
through all space. This extension of substance he considers to be the omni- 
presence of God. The distinction between actual and virtual omnipresence of 
God is a subject better calculated for the speculations of metaphysicians than 
for the discussion of theologians. Let the conclusion be which way it will, the 
effect will be the same. Whether he be actually or virtually present, it is in 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 107 

(or rather by) him we live, move, and have our being. We know too little of 
spiritual substance to have definite conceptions of its extension, or of its relation 
to place. We cannot define the limits of our spirits; but we have reason to be- 
lieve that we have perceptions, and we produce effects far beyond the extension 
of our material or spiritual substance. If a finite spirit can produce effects 
where its substance does not actually extend, it does not appear to be necessary 
to suppose that the substance of the divine Spirit should be actually extended 
wherever he operates. If it be admitted that the virtual presence of Christ is 
"with his disciples, to guard, comfort, and assist them in their apostolic labors," 
it is believed that the presence of God with them is not superior to this, either 
in its nature, oi-in its effects; and till it is proved to be superior, there appears 
to be no presumption in the belief. We do not maintain that these teNts alone 
prove Christ's universal presence; but they appear to prove his presence to be 
of such a nature, that it may as well extend to every other creature. But we 
are not left to inference on this subject. The apostle expressly tells us, "by 
him all things consist," Col. 1:17. "Upholding all things by the word of his 
power," Heb. 1:3. These texts prove, (and it is presumed it will be admitted) 
that Christ's virtual presence is as extensive as the works of creation; and till 
it is proved that the presence of Gsd the Father is more extensive and of a 
higher nature, we shall call it omnipresence, and a divine attribute. 

"Now we are sure that thouknowest all things and needest not that any man 
should ask thee." John 16:30. "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, 
because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he 
knew what was in man," John 2:24, 25. 

"Lord, which kno-west the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou 
hast chosen," Acts 1:24. It is probable that the address in the last verse quoted 
was made to Christ. It was his province, while he was upon earth to designate 
men to the apostleship. After his resurrection his authority was not abridged. So 
far from it that all authority in heaven and in earth was givos unto him. Of 
course he retained the authority of selecting and sending forth apostles. It was 
with peculiar propriety that they should direct their requests to him to desig- 
nate which of the two candidates should fill the place, which Judas had 
vacated. 

In these texts Christ is said to know all things; to know all men; to know 
what is in man. But we are told that "the word all, does not always denote 
strict universality." The very same phrase, of knowing all things, is used in ap- 
plication to men. "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all 
things," 1 John 2:20. It is admitted that the word all, is sometimes used in the 
scriptures in a limited sense. Because it is sometimes used in this manner, it 
does not follow that it is always used so. Because it is used in a restricted sense, 
when it is applied to men, it does not follow that it is to be restricted, when it is 
applied to Jesus Christ. But we are not left to ambiguous terms and phrases to 
prove the divine knowledge of Christ. He is said to know what was in man. At 
different times he gave evidence that he possessed this knowledge. But we are 
told that this knowledge might be revealed to him; that "numerous instances 
of this occur in scripture." Ahijah the prophet, although blind through age, was 
inspired to know the wife of Jeroboam and the intentions of her heart, notwith- 
standing she feigned herself another. It is asserted, concerning Elijah the 
prophet, that he could tell the things, which the king of Israel should do in his 
bed chamber; an expression denoting a know ledge of the most secret transac- 
tions. Much in point is the declaration of Elisha. And the man of God said, 
"Let her alone, for her soul is vexed within her; and the Lord hath hidden it 
from me, and hath not told me." We have a memorable instance in the Acts of 
the Apostles, in which Peter knew by inspiration, that Ananias had kept back 
part of the price of the land, though he declared he had not; and, also, that he 
and his wife had secretly agreed to maintain the falsehood. "My lord is wise 
according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the 
earth." 

These are particular cases of extraordinary knowledge. In the case of Ahijah, 
it is expressly asserted, that the Lord told him the errand and the deception of 
Jeroboam's wife. In respect to Elisha's knowledge of the words, which the king 
of Syria spoke in his bed chamber, it is only a declaration of a servant of the 
Syrian king. But admitting his declaration to be literally true, it only proves 
that a particular fact was revealed to him. When the Shunamite went unto 
Elisha with the sad tidings of the death of her son, he did not know her errandv 



108 DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. 

and for this reason, the Lor<Lhad hid it from him, and had not told him. This im- 
plies that when he had extraordinary knowledge, it was by inspiration. It is not 
recorded how Peter knew the secret deception of Ananias and his wife. But there 
is no doubt that he received knowledge of this event, from Him, who gave him 
power to heal a lame man. When the widow of Tekoah perceived that David had 
discovered her deception; and convinced of his sagacity, she in a complimentary 
manner compared him with an angel of God to know all things thai are in the 
earth. In all these instances, extraordinary knowledge was communicated by 
the divine Being. But these communications were made only \\\ particular 
cases, and for special purposes. Those men, who were thus endowed, had 
not a knowledge of the hearts of men generally, nor had they a knowledge of a 
single heart at all times. 

Christ's knowledge appears very different from this. He knew not only a 
particular thought of a particular person, but he knew all men; and needed not 
that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man. This text ex- 
presses his knowledge of what is in the hearts of mankind; and he possesses this 
knowledge without any one's testifying to him what passes in the human mind. 
There is no intimation given that he received this knowledge by inspiration. 
This and some other texts, which are applied to Christ, are as expressive of 
divine knowledge, as any texts, which are applied to the Father. But we are 
told, there are texts, which represent Christ's knowledge to be inferior to the 
Father's, or to be derived from him. It is admitted there are two classes of 
texts, which are applied to Christ. One class represents him having knowledge, 
which is peculiar to Deity. Another class represents him having limited knowl- 
edge; having knowledge, or doctrines, given, shewn, taught him from above. 
These two classes of texts exhibit Christ in his divine and human nature. When 
things are said to be given, shewn, and taught to Christ, he is either exhibited 
in his humanity, or in his mediatorial, subordinate office. When Christ says, 
"The Father lot :th the Son, and sheweth him all things, that himself doeth," he 
asserts his perfect knowledge of all the operations of the Father; and also ihe 
intimate union, which subsists between them. To express their equality of 
knowledge in unequivocal language he says, "As the Father knoweth me, even 
so know I the Fathez\" 

"I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto 
every one of you according to your works," Rev. 2:23. It will not be pre- 
tended that Christ searcheth, by inspiration, the reins and hearts. A person 
may be inspired with a knowledge of what passes in another's heart; but it is not 
proper to say, one is inspired to search his heart. But it is asserted that power 
may be delegated to Christ for this purpose; and it is supposed he "will at the 
day of general judgment be endued with all the knowledge of men's thoughts 
and dispositions, which is necessary to the discharge of his office." Let it be 
observed, that a text in the book of Jeremiah predicates of God the same power. 
'•I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according 
to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Now let it be asked why 
the same unqualified words, when Christ applies them to himself, do not import 
the same power, as when God applies them to himself? By what rule are they to 
be restricted in one case, and not in the, other? A delegation of power to a 
creature to know all things is an impartation entirely disproportionate to the 
capacity of the recipient. Christ, to express his union and equality with the 
Father, says, "What things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 
At the same time he disclaimed all pretensions to acting separately from him. 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 



All things were made by him, and without him was 
not any thing made that was made. John 1: -3. There 
are various sources, from which information may he 
derived respecting the nature of beings. Something 
may be learned from their names. Something may 
be learned from their attributes; and much may be 
learned from their operations. Those exercises, which 
are limited in degree and in extent, are justly attribu- 
ted to finite beings. Those exercises, which are un- 
limited in degree and extent, or are in the highest 
possible degree, characterize a nature of infinite power. 
In the chain of visible existences there is a visible 
chain of dependencies. Those limited powers, which 
are discovered, are dependent; and may be traced to 
a power, as their origin, which is independent. This 
power resides in a nature, which is distinct from all 
other natures, and is superior to them. It resides in a 
nature, which alone is divine. That power, from which 
all other power originated, is infinite and independent. 
This power is attributed to the Son of God, and it 
designates his divinity. 

The apostle Paul, in one place says that God made 
the worlds by Jesus Christ. In another place he says, 
by him he created all things. From this mode of 
expression it has been inferred that the Son had no 
inherent power in his nature adequate to the work 
of creation; that he was merely an instrument in God's 



110 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 

hand, by which he performed this great work. The 
phrase, by him (5/ uvtov) has been considered import- 
ing an instrumental, but not an efficient cause. But this 
phrase does not necessarily import mere instrumen- 
tality; nor does it usually import it in the sacred scrip- 
tures. The same particle is connected with the 
Father and with the Holy Spirit, as well as with the 
Son. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
by the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul speaking of 
God says, "Of him and by him, and to him are all 
things." If the particle (£/) connected with God and 
the Holy Ghost, does not import instrumentality, it 
does not necessarily import it, when it is applied to 
the Son. The same particle repeatedly imports, in 
the sacred scriptures, the principle and efficient cause. 
After Peter had healed a lame man, he ascribed the 
cure to the power of the Son of God as its cause. 
"The faith, which is by him, hath given him this per- 
fect soundness in the presence of you all." Christ 
was the Author of this faith; and this faith was the 
instrumental or secondary cause of the cure. The 
apostle Paul, speaking of Christ, says, "By whom we 
have received grace and apostleship." The scriptures 
abundantly testify that Christ is the Author, or cause 
of grace and apostleship. Paul, in his salutation to 
the Galatians begins thus, Paul, an apostle not of men, 
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. 
The same efficiency is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by 
(Si) the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to 
God, purge jour conscience from dead works to serve 
the living God." "God is faithful, by whom (5/ 6v) ye 
were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ 
our Lord. It became him for whom are all things, 
and by whom (J/ 6v) are all things, in bringing many 
sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation 
perfect through suffering." From this indiscriminate 
use and application of the terms, by him, it follows that 
they do not necessarily import mere instrumentality. 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OP CREATION. Ill 

The common use of the term, as well as the scripture 
use, shews that the particle by (Si) is often connected 
with the principal agent, or efficient cause. 

It is not only said in scripture that God created the 
worlds by Jesus Christ; but it is also said that till things 
were made by him; and the word God, is not connect- 
ed with the declaration. There is no doubt that these 
different forms of expressing the same thing were not 
accidental; but were designed to express the co-ope- 
ration of the Father and the Son in the work of crea- 
tion. Christ frequently declared his union and co-ope- 
ration with the Father. "My Father worketh hith- 
erto and I work. What things soever he doeth, these 
also doeth the Son likewise. He that sent me is with 
me; the Father hath not left me alone. He that 
hath seen me, bath seen the Father. Believe me that 
I am in the Father and the Father in me." These 
passages in their connexion prove the union and opera- 
tion of Christ with the Father. (See Macknight, 
and Schleusner's Lex. on Si.) 

Other passages of scripture, whose signification does 
not turn on prepositions or doubtful expressions, ascribe 
the work of creation to Christ. In the Revelation of 
St. John, Christ is called "the beginning of the crea- 
tion of God." The original word («?%vi) rendered be- 
ginning, is used in different senses. It signifies efficient 
cause, author, or head. (See Poole on the text.) Upon 
this construction, which is the most natural, the text 
proves that Christ was Author of Creation. (#?%vj 
Christus vocatur, quia fuit ante omnes res cuatas. 
Schleus. Lex.) If any doubt remain respecting the 
translation of this word, other texts offer their assis- 
tance to prove the subject under consideration. Christ 
saith of himself, "The Son can do nothing of himself, 
but what he seeth the Father do; for what things 
soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 
This text authorizes a belief that there is such a union 
between the Father and the Son, that the same work 
may be ascribed to both. All things are of the Father, 



112 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 

but they are by the Son. All the works of nature 
may be traced to them both as one undivided Cause. 

Another passage is clearly to the present purpose. 
"By him were all things created that are in heaven 
and that are in earth; whether they be thrones or 
dominions, or principalities or powers; all things were 
created by him, andybr him; and he is before all things 
and by him all things consist," Col. 1: 16, 17. These 
texts describe the extent of his works. All things, wheth- 
er in heaven or in earth, visible or invisible, were crea- 
ted by him. They were not only created by him, but they 
were created f6r him. He was not only the cause of their 
existence, but he was the ultimate object, for which 
they were created. They were made for his service 
and glory. His power did not cease to operate at the 
close of creation; but it continued in sustaining the 
works of his hand. "By him all things consist;" i. e. 
are supported. He was before all things. Before 
creatures were, he was. He was begotten before the 
whole creation. (%$ul6Touog navy; 'ati'cswq.) Of course he 
was not himself any part of creation. (Christtis vocatur 
^wTOTovto; kcvtviq HTit?£Kg princeps & dominus omnium 
rerum creatarum. Schleus. Lex.) 

The apostle to the Hebrews ascribes the work of 
creation to Christ in the clearest terms. Speaking 
of Christ, he says, "Thou Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are 
the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but 
thou remainest; and they all shall wax old, as doth a 
garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, 
and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and 
thy years shall not fail." The connexion justly admits 
of application to no other than to Christ. But the 
prophet says, "The gods that have not made the heav- 
ens and the earth shall perish." This makes a visible 
distinction between Christ and the gods of this world. 
The same, which the apostle applies to Christ, 
the Psalmist applies to God. If, what the Psalmist 
says has any weight in proof that God created the 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 113 

world, it has the same weight of proof that Christ 
created the world. The whole declaration is explicit. 
It contains none of those prepositions (diet, ev, &c.) 
which have been construed to answer any purpose. 
If plain language has any weight, there is proof that 
the Son is the Creator of the world. "Some have 
been willing to think, and bold enough to say, that 
these four verses were fraudulently added, and were 
not originally a part of this epistle. But all the copies 
and ancient versions of this epistle retain these four 
verses; so that any pretence of forgery or interpola- 
tion does but expose the man that makes it, and the 
cause that needs it." 

Many other texts have a direct bearing upon this 
subject, and prove that the sacred scriptures attribute 
the work of creation to Jesus Christ. Notwithstand- 
ing the scriptures are so explicit on this subject, a ques- 
tion has arisen whether Christ created the world by 
his own inherent power, or whether he created it 
merely as an instrument, or by power delegated to 
him. If he was divine, or if divine nature was united 
with his humanity, he performed, by his own power, 
the works attributed to him. If he was not divine, or 
if this union did not subsist, he performed his works 
by delegated, or borrowed power. God maketh his 
angels ministering spirits. He sometimes deputizes 
man to act in a more elevated sphere than that, for 
which his native powers had qualified him. The 
prophets and apostles were endued in this manner. 
God led Israel by the hand of Moses. By him he 
wrought miracles. By his prophets and apostles he 
also wrought miracles. If there be no difference in 
the nature, decree and circumstances between their 
works, and the works of Christ, then it may be admit- 
ted that he was but a man, furnished with extraordina- 
ry power, as were the prophets and apostles. 

When they exhibited signs and wonders; when they 
performed works, which exceeded the efforts of human 
power, they never pretended to do them in their own 
15 



114 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 

names, nor by their own native strength. When they 
wrought miracles, they addressed a power foreign 
from themselves. When Paul had healed a cripple by 
saying, "Stand upright on thy feet," the Lycaonians 
reputed him as a god; and would, have offered him sac- 
rifice. But he denied all claim to divine honors; all 
claim to anything above humanity. When any proph- 
et or apostle wrought miracles, there was always 
clear and decided evidence that he acted entirely under 
authority; that he acted under the operation of a 
power, which was occasionally communicated to him 
for special purposes. 

But Christ performed greater works. He performed 
them with higher authority, and under different cir- 
cumstances. "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid 
the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the 
works of thine hands. All things were made by him 
and without him was not any thing made that was 
made." The first of these two passages was not design- 
ed to convey the idea that Christ created the world 
exclusively of the Father and Holy Spirit. In the 
history of the creation it is said, "In the beginning 
God created the heavens and the earth." It is wor- 
thy of notice, that the original word in this text ren- 
dered God, is in the plural number; and is used uni- 
formly in the plural number through the whole history 
of the creation. This plural noun embraces the divine 
nature generally. It embraces the Father, the Son 
and the Holy Spirit. Creation is ascribed to them 
collectively; it is also ascribed to them individually, 
(Heb. 1:2. John 1:3. Psalm 33:6, and 104:30.) 
There appears to be no ground for ascribing the work 
of creation to the Father exclusively, primarily, or 
officially. There appears to be no ground for ascrib- 
ing it to the Son, or to the Spirit, under either of these 
qualifications. All those works, recorded in the scrip- 
tures, which do not immediately and directly include 
the work of redemption, are attributed to God, to di- 
vine nature in plurality, without special regard to dis- 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 115 

tinction of character, of order, or of office. They are, 
of course, attributed with the strictest propriety either 
to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. There is 
design, wise design in exhibiting the works of creation 
in this manner. It conveys the idea that there is but 
one God; that there is a distinct plurality in the divine 
nature; that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 
are divine; that they are united in nature; in design; 
and in operation. 

When the scriptures represent God creating the 
world by Jesus Christ, they do not design that it should 
be understood that Christ was a mere instrument in 
the work. The original word, (52) translated by, often 
signifies, or implies in the sacred scriptures an efficient 
cause of any kind. Consequently, this mode of expres- 
sion helps to prove that Christ, by his own inherent 
power was author of creation. The same original 
word often signifies, and is often translated in, With 
this signification of the word, it would be understood 
that God created the world in Jesus Christ. This 
would be an evidence of the union, which subsists in 
the divine plurality. 

There is the clearest evidence that the sacred writ- 
ings attribute creation to Jesus Christ. This forms 
an argument to prove that he is, divine; for the scrip- 
tures attribute divinity to the Creator. "The invisi- 
ble things of him from the creation of the world are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
made, even his eternal power and Godhead." As the 
works of creation prove the eternal power and divinity 
of their Creator; and as Christ is their Creator, it fol- 
lows that he possesses eternal power and divinity. 
"Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said, O Lord 
God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, 
thou art the God, even thou alone of all the kingdoms 
of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth." In 
this passage Hezekiah ascribes the works of creation 
to God alone. As the same works are ascribed to 
Christ, it follows that Christ is God. "Thus saith the 



116 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 

Lord, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker, — I have 
made the earth and created man upon it; I, even my 
hands, have stretched out the heavens and all their 
host have I commanded." Whether the names Lord, 
Holy One, and Maker, in this text stand for the Trinity 
or not, creation is attributed to the Lord; to the Holy 
One of Israel. As Christ is proved to be Creator, it 
follows that Christ is Lord, the Holy One of Israel. 

There is no necessity of supposing that Jesus Christ 
is a subordinate or instrumental agent in the work of 
creation. If it be admitted that there is a plurality 
in the divine nature, it is easy to perceive that the 
creation of all things may be attributed with equal 
propriety to the Son, as to the Father. 

It is not necessary that God should employ an in- 
strument in the work of creation. Almighty power 
needs no foreign aid. He can and does accomplish all 
his pleasure, and none can stay his hand. There is 
no intimation in the history of creation that God em- 
ployed a subordinate agent. "In the beginning God 
created the heavens and the earth. God said, let there 
be light and there was light." There is not the least ap- 
pearance of any medium through which he operated. 

In the formation of the first creature, it is impossible 
that God should operate through the medium of any 
agent. There was a date in duration, in which there 
was no agent, or active medium between self-existence 
and non-existence. The first creature, therefore, was 
necessarily made by the immediate act of God. There 
is no intimation given in the scriptures that the first 
creature was formed in a manner different from suc- 
ceeding creatures. It is written, "All things were 
made by him, (i. e. Christ;) and without him was not 
any thing made that was made. As he made all 
things, he, of course, made the first creature. If he 
made the first creature without an instrumental medi- 
um, he was able to make them all in the same manner. 

It is absurd to suppose that Christ was a created 
medium, through which God made the world; because, 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OP CREATION. 117 

ivithout him was not any thing made that was made. 
If Christ were a mere creature, he must, if this text 
be true, have created himself, which is absurd. If 
God used a medium in the formation of the world, 
it must have been a created one. If he made it a 
passive instrument, the work could not properly be 
attributed to the instrumental medium. If God should 
make an absolute impartation of creative power to a 
creature, he would divest himself of that power; and 
the creature would possess the prerogative of divinity. 
Such inconsistency proves that God did not create the 
world through the medium of a subordinate agent, 
but that he made it immediately by his own power.* 

* Mr. Yates maintains "that when a New Testament writer employs the pre- 
XJOsition AIA, (with a genitive case) to point out the cause of any effect, he 
means the instrumental cause, and refers to some other being, either expressly 
mentioned, or contemplated, who is considered as theirs*, or original cause." 
In view of this principle let us examine a few of many texts. "It must needs 
be that offences come; but woe to that man, by -whom (<Ti ou) the offence cometh," 
Mat. 18: 7. This learned Unitarian remarks thus upon this passage. "It must 
needs be." — "Who imposed the necessity? Undoubtedly, the Almighty Creator 
and Governor of the universe." We would inquire, was this imposed necessity 
natural, or moral? If it was moral, how could it be imposed? Or how could it 
consist with the efficiency of an extraneous "original cause?" If the necessity was 
natural, if it was imposed by "the Almighty Creator and Governor of the uni- 
verse—as the first or original cause," what then is man? He is but the medium, 
or instrument, through which divine power produced the offence. What! Is 
God then the author of sin? Has the subject come to this dilemma, that Christ 
possessed creative, i. e. divine power, or moral evil must be traced up to God, as 
its original cause? I would rather believe the mystery of the Trinity, than believe 
that the holy nature of God is the ''original cause" of moral evil. 

"Woe to that man, by whom (<ft Zv) the Son of man is betrayed," Mat. 26: 24, 
"Was Judas also," (says Mr. Yates) "an original cause? Was then the salvation 
of the world by the death of Christ left to depend upon the supreme power and 
uncontrolled discretion of an insignificant mortal? The scriptures teach a very 
contrary doctrine. He was betrayed by the determinate counsel and foreknowl- 
edge of God." 

"By one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin," Rom. 5:12. 
"The clean meaning of the apostle's words (says Mr. Yates) is, that sin entered 
into the world by the decree of God, through one man as his instrument, and 
death through sin." 

This learned Unitarian appears to be unwilling to allow that a creature is the 
efficient cause of any effect, but that he is only a medium, through which divine 
power operates. We shall not here examine whether this hypothesis destroys 
moral agency or not. But he does not appear to make a distinction between the 
natural powers of a creature, and those powers, which are supernaturally com- 
municated. He does not appear to distinguish the nature of the act of Moses in 
killing an Egyptian, from that of dividing the Red Sea. In the latter case he was 
the instrumental, in the former, he was the efficient cause. The conclusion we 
would draw from the foregoing remarks is this, that Christ, in the work of cre- 
ation, and in the performance of miracles, wrought by his own natural power, 
and not by power which was extraordinarily communicated to him; and it may 
be added, the Greek particle, which is connected with him as agent does not 
militate against 1 his opinion. 



118 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF CREATION. 



Had the Greek preposition TITO been used in connexion with Chr'i9t instead 
of Jict, the case would not be materially different, as Mr. Yates supposes. For 
this preposition is frequently connected with created beings to express their 
efficiency. See Mat. 2: 16. Mat. 3: 6, 13. Mat. 4: t, and many other places. 

In the case under consideration, there appears to be a similarity between the 
idiom of the Greek, and the idiom of our own language. We say, an illustrious 
deed is performed by a certain man; and we say, a certain man has performed 
an illustrious deed. We consider the expressions equivalent. In like manner, 
it appears to be the same thing, whether it be said, all things were made by 
Christ, or he made all things. In 1 Cor. 1:9, the preposition <f}« is connected 
with God. "God is faithful, by -whom ye were called into the fellowship of his 
Son Jesus Christ our Lord." This shews that this Greek particle is connected 
with an efficient cause. Also in Heb. '2:10, Si is connected with the Father. 
"For it became him, for whom are all things, and by -whom (/i ov) are all things," 
&c. This latter text, Mr. Yates has passed unnoticed. 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 



Christ, in union of operation with the Father and the 
Holy Spirit, created the world; and held authority in 
common with them. Had creatures preserved order, 
and yielded obedience to their Creator, it is probable 
that the distinctions in the divine nature, which are 
manifested by the titles and characters of Father, Son 
and Holy Ghost, would have lain forever concealed 
from the view of created intelligences. Revelation 
has proved that it was the divine purpose to repair 
the ruins of the fall, and subdue all enemies. To 
effectuate this purpose it was necessary that different 
offices should be established, and different works be 
assigned to each of the sacred Trinity. This method 
is said to be necessary, because this method was chosen; 
is revealed; and is in actual operation. Authority, by 
reciprocal consent, was given to each to act in his 
respective office. This giving and receiving of author- 
ity implies no superiority of nature in one; nor does it 
imply any essential loss or acquisition of power in the 
other. Christ's official, or mediatorial authority com- 
menced immediately after the apostasy. No commu- 
nications have been made from heaven to this fallen 
world, excepting by him. 

The Son of God did not exercise mediatorial author- 
ity to the greatest extent till after his resurrection. 
The union of human and divine nature was essential 
to the complete filling of this office. Though there 
was no alteration in Christ's divinity in the different 



120 CHRIST POSSESSES D I VINE AUTHORITY. 

stages of the work of redemption; yet there was 
alteration in his humanity. He was made perfect 
through suffering, (Heb. 2:10.) When he had suffered 
the pains of death and had risen to life, he was fully 
capacitated; and he received authority for every part 
of the work of the mediatorial office. It was then 
he said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth." This text ought to have been translated, All 
authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
His divine power always was and always will be the 
same. But his mediatorial authority had its beginning; 
its progress; and it will have its consummation. When 
he shall have raised the dead; when he shall have 
"gathered together in one the children of God;" when 
all things are put under his feet, then will he give up 
his kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom to God, even the 
Father. Having accomplished his mediatorial work, 
having given up those, whom the Father had given 
him, he will relinquish all that rule and authority, 
which he received. "When all things shall be subdued 
unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject 
unto him, that put all things under him, that God may 
be all in all." Christ may be said to be subject to him, 
who put all things under him in a comparative view. 
In comparison with that mediatorial authority, which 
he once had, but which he relinquishes at the judg- 
ment day, he may be said to be subject; or subjects 
himself to that state, which he before occupied. 
When the work of redemption is completed; when 
that kingdom, which was purchased with the price of 
blood is given up, there will be no need of the inter- 
vention of a Mediator; those offices, which are pecu- 
liar to the work of redemption will cease; and God in 
plurality (D'il^K) who created the world will hold 
the reins of government. The kingdom of saints will 
be an everlasting kingdom; and the dominion over it, 
like the work of creation, may, with strict propriety 
be ascribed to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 121 

Thus God will be all in all as he was before the 
apostasy. 

When it is said that all authority is given unto 
Christ, it is not designed to convey an idea that the 
Father and the Holy Spirit did not retain any author- 
ity. The import of the text is, Christ received all 
authority, which was necessary to effectuate the work 
of redemption; that work, for which he came into the 
world. The word all is frequently used in the scrip- 
tures in a restricted sense. 

It is necessary to take a more particular view of 
Christ's authority, as it is exercised in the various 
departments of the mediatorial office. He exercises 
authority over holy and fallen angels. As they both 
affect his kingdom, it is pertinent to view his dominion 
in relation to them. "All authority is given unto me 
in heaven." If this text does not extend Christ's 
authority to fallen spirits, other passages assign him 
this extent of authority. It was early predicted that 
Christ should bruise the serpent's head. At a time 
the devil, under advantageous circumstances, tempted 
Christ. But with authority he repelled him and pre- 
vailed against him. At various times he cast out evil 
spirits, and sent them whither he pleased. At a time 
they called upon his name, that he would not torment 
them; and they inquired of him whether he had come 
to torment them before the time; which implied that 
there would be a time, in which he would have 
authority to torment them. When the seventy re- 
turned from their mission, they said unto Christ, 
"Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through 
thy name." Christ took upon himself flesh and blood 
and suffered death, that through death he might de- 
stroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. 

Christ has also authority over the holy angels. 
God set his Son "far above all principality and power, 
and might and dominion, and every name that is named, 
not only in this world, but also in that which is to 
come." When Christ was upon earth angels minis- 
16 



122 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 

tered unto him. When he shall come to raise the 
dead and judge the world, angels will attend him; 
and he will send them to gather the elect from the 
four winds. The apostle Paul speaking of Christ 
says. "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right 
hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being 
made subject unto him. God hath highly exalted 
him and given him a name, which is above every name; 
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under 
the earth." The holy angels are concerned with the 
work of redemption. They desire to look into it. 
They are ministering spirits, "sent forth to minister 
for them, who shall be heirs of salvation." They are 
employed by the great Head of the Church as instru- 
ments in his work. 

Christ's authority in heaven extends to the send- 
ing of the Holy Spirit into this world to aid the work 
of redemption. John the Baptist foretold that Jesus 
would baptize with the Holy Ghost. Christ himself 
promised, that after his departure from the world, he 
would send the Holy Spirit. "When the Comforter 
is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, 
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the 
Father, he shall testify of me. It is expedient for 
you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Com- 
forter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will 
send him unto you." After Christ's ascension, and 
agreeably to his declaration, he sent the Holy Spirit. 
At a time, when Peter was preaching Christ, "the 
Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word." 
On the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were 
together, "there appeared unto them cloven tongues, 
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost." These texts 
prove that Christ has authority to send the Holy 
Spirit into the hearts of sinners for their conversion; 
and into the hearts of saints for their comfort. 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 123 

All the prophets and apostles, which have taught 
mankind the will of heaven, were sent by Christ, and 
were under his authority. It was Christ, who ap- 
peared unto Moses, and sent him to lead Israel out of 
Egypt. It was Christ, who sent the Spirit of pro- 
phecy to the prophets, by which they taught the 
people, and foretold events. After Christ appeared 
in the world, in human flesh, he selected men, quali- 
fied them and commissioned them to preach the gos- 
pel. When Christ was teaching the multitude and 
his disciples, he said, "Neither be ye called masters; 
for one is your Master, even Christ." Here the Sa- 
vior claims an authority over men, which he did not 
allow to men. He called his twelve disciples unto 
him; gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast 
them out, and to heal all manner of sickness. He 
sent them forth; he directed them where to go; what 
to preach, and he foretold what would befal them. 
He declares himself to be the Door, through which 
his shepherds shall go in unto the sheep. This 
denotes that they derive all their authority from him. 
The apostle Paul acknowledged that he received his 
commission from the Lord Jesus. "That I might finish 
my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have 
received of the Lord Jesus." The apostle Paul ex- 
presses entire dependence on Christ, for spiritual 
strength. He says, "I can do all things;" but he 
adds, "through Christ strengthening me." When he 
besought the Lord that the messenger of Satan might 
depart from him, the Lord answered, "My grace is 
sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in 
weakness." The apostle adds, "most gladly there- 
fore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the 
power of Christ may rest upon me." He acknowl- 
edges himself and the other apostles to be ambassa- 
dors for Christ. Paul and the other apostles, in their 
salutations to the churches to which they wrote, 
style themselves the servants or apostles of Jesus 
Christ. 



124 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 

The apostles not only received their ministry from 
the Lord Jesus, and acted under him; but they must 
give an account to him. The Master of these servants 
will return and reckon with them. They must stand 
before the judgment seat of Christ. The Lord said 
to his disciples, "Watch ye therefore, and pray always 
that ye may be accounted worthy.. ..to stand before 
the Son of man." The apostle Paul said, "To me it 
is a very small thing that I should be judged of you 
or of man's judgment. He, who judgeth me is the 
Lord;" that is, Christ. 

Christ possesses a decided and a distinguishing supe- 
riority over his prophets, priests, and apostles. The 
apostle, contrasting him with Moses, gives him a strik- 
ing pre-eminence. "This man, (said he, speaking of 
Christ) was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, 
inasmuch as he, who hath builded the house, hath 
more honor than the house." If the prophets had the 
distinguishing honor of foretelling the advent of the 
Messiah, he had the greater honor of being the object 
of their predictions. 

The priesthood under the law, was temporary and 
mutable; but Christ had an unchangeable priesthood. 
The priests, who attended at the altar, offered sacri- 
fices continually for the people; and they first offered 
sacrifice for themselves. But their sacrifices could not 
take away sin. Christ "needed not as those high 
priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and 
then for the people's." "But after he had offered one 
sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand 
of God. For by one offering he hath perfected for 
ever them that are sanctified." 

The apostles acknowledge Christ's superiority. He 
is the great, the chief Shepherd. They are subordi- 
nate shepherds. They feed the sheep, which he 
purchased. The apostle saith, "we preach not our- 
selves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your 
servants for Jesus' sake." He appeared to glory in 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 125 

humbling himself, and in ascribing all excellence and 
authority to his divine Master. 

The kingdom of Christ will not be perfected till 
he has raised the dead. His mediatorial authority 
therefore, embraces the resurrection. When he 
was upon earth he gave evidence of this authority. 
In several instances he raised the dead. Of himself 
he said, "I have power to lay down my life, and I 
have power to take it again." "Destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of 
the temple of his body. For as the Father raiseth 
up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son 
quickeneth whom he will." Jesus saith of himself, 
"I am the resurrection and the life. I say unto you 
the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall 
hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear 
shall live." This is the testimony, both by word and 
deed, which Christ has given of himself respecting the 
resurrection of the dead. 

Some passages of scripture ascribe resurrection of 
the dead to the Father and to the Son indiscriminate- 
ly. "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quick- 
eneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he 
will." Christ, when he was upon earth, raised cer- 
tain individuals from the dead. As he performed this 
same kind of work, which the Father had performed; 
as he performed it in cases, in which he would, there 
was the highest evidence that he possessed divine 
power and divine authority. When the resurrection 
is attributed exclusively to the Son of God it is the 
general resurrection at the last day. 

After Christ has raised the dead, he will sit in judg- 
ment, and pass sentence upon their characters. Christ 
saith all things are delivered unto me of my Father. 
The apostle Paul saith, "He hath appointed a day in 
the which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
that man, whom he hath ordained. He commanded 
us to preach unto the people and to testify that it is he, 
which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick 



126 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 



and dead. We shall all stand before the judgment 
seat of Christ. Before him shall be gathered all 
nations, and he shall separate them one from another 
as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats. 
The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all 
judgment unto the Son." 

When Christ passes sentence on the human race, 
he has authority to confer reward on the righteous, 
and inflict punishment on the wicked. "Before him shall 
be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one 
from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from 
the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right 
hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King 
say unto them on the right hand, come ye blessed of 
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world. Then shall he say unto 
them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed into 
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, 
These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but 
the righteous into life eternal." Near the close of the 
volume of inspiration Christ saith, "Behold I come 
quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man 
as his work shall be." Many other passages might be 
produced in further proof that Christ has authority 
to raise the dead and to administer retribution. 

Because all authority was given to the Son; because 
he was made better than the angels, and appointed 
heir of all things; because the Father committed all 
judgment unto the Son and hath ordained him for this 
purpose, it has been inferred that he does not possess 
inherent qualifications for these great works and ele- 
vated offices; that he is only constituted to these works 
and offices; and endued with divine communications 
superior to those made to the prophets. 

The great superiority which Christ holds over all 
the prophets and apostles affords but little ground for 
comparison. In comparison with angels, he hath ob- 
tained by inheritance a more excellent name than they. 
By inheritance he hath obtained a divine name. If it 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 127 

be by inheritance, it is by right, not by favor or reward. 
If the Father and the Son are two separate and dis- 
tinct beings, and the Father should communicate his 
fulness to the Son, the Son would possess the sum 
total of divinity; and the Father would retain only 
his name, without one divine attribute. He would 
possess no power to recal that fulness, which he had 
imparted. To have authority over all things in heav- 
en and in earth; to have the government of angels 
and the power of sending the Holy Spirit; to have the 
superintendence of the Church universal and the direc- 
tion of all its ministers; to raise the dead; to judge the 
world; to distribute reward and punishment propor- 
tionate to every character, must require attributes, 
mediately or immediately, which are divine. Christ, 
in all his works, appeared to act by his own power. 
His language was, "I will, be thou clean. Arise and 
walk. Thy sins are forgiven thee. Young man, I 
say unto thee arise. Lazarus, come forth." This is 
not the language of dependence. This is not the lan- 
guage of borrowed power. When the apostles 
wrought miracles, they attributed the efficiency to 
Jesus Christ; and they wrought in his name. When 
Peter was about to heal a lame man, he said, "In the 
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." 
To Eneas, who was sick of the palsy, he said, "Jesus 
Christ maketh thee whole." Before he raised Dorcas, 
he prayed. When Paul healed a lame man, and the 
people reputed him as a god, he disclaimed the title, 
and arrogated no superior power to himself. It would 
have been highly improper for them to attribute their 
efficiency to Christ, if he had not an efficient power 
in himself. 

It is hard to conceive why God should appoint a 
creature; vest him with authority; endue him with 
powers for the purpose of performing works and sus- 
taining offices in the scheme of redemption, which 
divinity alone can perform and sustain. W r hen the 
supreme power of a nation appoints a minister to treat 



^ 



128 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY 

with another, he vests him with authority for the pur- 
pose; but he furnishes him with no extraordinary quali- 
fications. When God appointed the Son to mediate 
between him and a rebellious world, he gave him 
authority to do the duties of that office. But he com- 
municated to him no divine powers. For he needed no 
such communication. He was in his own nature, ade- 
quate to all the works, which were peculiar to a Re- 
deemer. He knew the will of the Father; and what 
would satisfy his law. He knew all things in heaven 
and on earth. He knew what was in man; and he 
selected and qualified individuals, who acted under 
him in the great work of salvation. He had power 
in himself not only to lay down his own life and take 
it again; but he had power to raise the dead; and 
destroy him, that had the power of death. As he 
knows all things, and as he is righteous, he is competent 
to pass final judgment upon the human race, and dis- 
tribute reward and punishment. Having power in 
his own nature to do these things, he did not need 
that any communications of divine power should be 
made to him. He only needed authority, that is, the 
appointment or consent of the Father to act in this 
capacity. 

There appears to be no necessity that God should 
deputise a creature to do those divine works and sus- 
tain those divine offices, which Christ did and sustained. 
It appears that God might as well directly commission 
his ambassadors to publish the gospel and officiate in 
the church, as select one from his creatures and author- 
ize him to commission them for this important work. 
When the chief magistrate of a state or nation appoints 
officers to act in various departments, and authorizes 
them to appoint subordinate officers, it is because he 
cannot attend to so great extent of business himself. 
But the divine Being is not circumscribed in his nature, 
nor limited in his attributes. His eye discerns all 
things. His power sustains all things. His wisdom 
directs all things. He needs no assistance. He admits 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 129 

vio partner on his throne. He communicates no divine 
prerogative to his creatures. It is not disputed that 
God employs agents; that he employs angels and men. 
But there is no evidence that he employs one to send 
another. If apostles were authorized to ordain others 
to the work of the Christian ministry, they ordained 
those only, who appeared to them to be sent of God. 
It is as easy for the divine Being to send ambassadors 
by his immediate power, as it would be to send them 
mediately by a delegated agent It would be as easy 
for him to raise the dead and judge the world by his 
own immediate act, as it would be to do the same 
through the medium of one of his creatures. 

There appears to be a striking impropriety that 
God should ordain any one of his creatures to do the 
works, and to do them in the manner, in which Christ 
did them. As great works as ever have been done 
are attributed to Christ; and there are no works to 
be done, which are mentioned in the scriptures, greater 
than those which he will do. These works he did, 
or will do, in his own name and by his own power. 
When any of mankind have performed works superior 
to human power, they gave decided evidence that the 
power was of God. If God communicated to Christ a 
power to work in his own name, he communicated an 
independent power. This is an essential attribute of 
the Deity. It is impossible to communicate divine 
attributes. As well may divine nature be destroyed, 
as divine attributes be communicated. 

Many things are said of Christ, which appear to 
give him an inferiority to the Father. He increased 
in wisdom. Speaking of the end of the world he 
says, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no 
not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, 
but the Father." "I seek not mine own will, but the 
will of the Father, which hath sent me." The time 
will come, when he will give up all authority and him- 
self become subject. If these and the like passages 
gave the only characteristic features of the Savior, it 
17 



130 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 

might well be supposed that he was inferior, infinitely 
inferior to the Father. But other texts attribute to 
him the highest degree of knowledge; they attribute 
to him every divine attribute. They not only style 
him King; but they give him a kingdom; yea, an ever- 
lasting dominion. When Christ is viewed in his 
humanity and in his mediatorial office, these difficulties, 
these seeming contrarieties vanish. "The man Christ 
Jesus increased in knowledge and wisdom. When he 
was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended upon him. 
When he departed from Jordan he was full of the 
Holy Ghost. He was led by the Spirit into the wil- 
derness. God gave the Spirit, not by measure unto 
hin. He anointed him with the oil of gladness above 
his fellows." These texts give abundant evidence that 
the Holy Spirit was bestowed in more copious effu- 
sions upon Jesus than upon the prophets or apostles. 
The descent, or unction of the Holy Ghost at his 
baptism was an inaugural rite to his office. In ancient 
times, kings and priests were introduced into their 
respective offices by the application of the anointing 
oil. As a prototype of these distinguished characters 
he was visibly introduced into his office by the anoint- 
ing of the Holy Spirit. Christ, as a man, needed the 
extraordinary influence of the Spirit as much as any 
king, prophet, or priest; and in the performance of 
the duties of his offices, he received a greater degree 
of the Spirit's influence than they. 

The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus Christ 
did not convey divine nature to him. The Son of 
God was united to the Son of man. During this union 
he received the influence of the Holy Spirit. After 
his baptism, after his consecration to his office, it is 
recorded of him that he was full of the Holy Ghost. 
Christ, in his mediatorial office is subordinate to the 
Father. By mutual consent he has taken this place. 
But the order of offices does not derogate from his 
divinity. 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 131 

When it is brought into one view that Christ had 
authority over the angels; authority to send the Holy 
Spirit; authority to send apostles and ministers, till the 
end of time, to preach the gospel for the edification of 
the church; authority to forgive sins, to raise the 
dead, to judge the world, and to give reward and pun- 
ishment, there is evidence that there was ground in 
his nature for possessing such authority. There is 
evidence that he is divine.* 

* There is a difference between s|ovo-/* and <fy vct/uk; between authority and power. 
By observing this difference, we shall discover additional light on the subject. 
Power may be greater than authority; but authority cannot be, strictly speak- 
ing, greater than power. Both are transferable. Both were communicated to 
the apostles by the Lord Jesus. They were enabled, and they were authorized 
to work miracles. Power was communicated to Jesus. In his human nature 
he was capable of receiving foreign aid and support; and he actually received 
them. When he was in agony, "there appeared an angel unto him from heaven 
strengthening him." Peter, preaching to Cornelius, said, "Ye know — how God 
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power, (fvvzjuii.) 
This consecrating unction was communicated to him at the time of his baptism. 
The giving of the Spirit to him without measure endued him with an ability, 
which did not belong to his human nature. 

Christ, speaking of his authority, says, "All power {t^oua-U) is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth." Mat. . ; 8:18. "And hath given him authority to ex- 
ecute judgment also." John 5:27. "As thou hast given him power (igovrizv') 
overall flesh." John 17:2. Other texts of scripture are of similar import. "And 
there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom." Dan. 7:14. "The 
Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35. 
'•All things are delivered to me of my Father." Luke 10:22. "Thou hast put 
all things in subjection under his feet." Heb. 2:8. This official authority 
Christ received from the Father. But the giving of authority does not imply the 
communication of apy new powers. Authority is a liberty to exercise one's pow- 
ers in a particular way for a particular purpose. When Christ received authority, 
it did not imply that he received extraordinary qualifications. It rather implied 
that he possessed the necessary qualifications for his office. When Peter spoke 
of the anointing of Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power, he spoke of it 
in connexion with his death and resurrection. It is natural, therefore, to infer 
that it was the man, Jesus, who was thus anointed. The apostle to the Hebrews, 
quoting a passage from the forty -fifth Psalm, describes the same unction. "God, 
even thy God, hath anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy fellows." His fellows 
were prophets and priests, who -were anointed with oil, and with the gifts of 
the Spirit. It was only in respect to the humanity of Christ, they could be call- 
ed his fellows; and in this nature he received greater communications of the Holy 
Spirit than they. But it was not in this nature the angels of God were command- 
ed to worship him. It was not in this nature he inherited a more excellent name 
than they. It was not in this nature he upheld all things by the word of his 
power. It appears, therefore, that he had another nature besides that which was 
anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power. 

While we find that an angel strengthened the humanity of Christ; and that the 
Spirit communicated to it a supernatural power, and that he received official au- 
thority from the Father, we find him possessing a power, which appears to be 
underived and independent. Christ speaks of a glory he had with the Father 
before the world was. He does not intimate that this glory was given him. In 
the course of his address to his Father, he says, "The glory, which thou gavest 
me, I have given them." The glory, which he gave them, was the influence of 
the Spirit, which enabled them to do extraordinary works. The glory, then, 
which was given him, was the anointing of the Holy Ghost. But he had a glory 



132 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 

prior to this period; a glory, which was before the world. This could not be 
the self same glory, which was communicated to him in the flesh. Because 
glory or power was given to the man Christ Jesus, it does not follow that the 
Lord from heaven had his glory or power by gift, or by derivation. 

Christ, in the continuation of his prayer for his disciples, says, "Father, I will 
that they also, whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they 
may behold my glory, which thou hast given ine." From this part of Christ's 
prayer, it has been inferred that this glory, which was given him was the same, 
which he had with the Father before the world was. Whether this is true or 
not, there is no apparent connexion between the premises and the conclusion. 
These glories, which he mentions in the different parts of his prayer belong to 
two different states, or periods. One belongs to that state, in which he was be- 
fore he came to this world; the other belongs to that state, in which he is after 
he has returned to heaven with the trophies of his victory. To infer something 
immediately from one state respecting the other, is very far from correct reason- 
ing. The scriptures state that he is to receive glory in consequence of his incar- 
nation and humiliation. The apostle Paul, speaking of him in the. form of a ser- 
vant, and obedient unto death, saith, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, 
and given him a name, which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every 
knee should bow." Again he saith, "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower 
than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." From 
this statement of the apostle it appears, that Christ has a glory since his incarna- 
tion, which he had not before; and that he receives this glory as a reward for his 
work of redemption. From this view of the subject it appears that Christ has 
an essential glory, which he originally had with the Father; and that he has an 
acquired glory, which was given him tor establishing a kingdom and bringing 
it to a state of blessedness. 

It is readily admitted that Christ received power, from the Holy Spirit, in his 
human nature; and received authority., from the Father, in his mediatorial ca- 
pacity. This reception of power and authority has given rise to the opinion that 
Christ is absolutely dependent on, and inferior to, the Father. Whether this 
opinion is correct or not, it does not conclusively follow from the premises. 
Because Christ possessed human nature, and received power from heaven in 
that nature, it does not follow that he does not possess another and a higher na- 
ture. The scriptures abundantly testify that the material nature of man is mortal. 
But it would not be correct to infer that be had no other than a material nature; 
and that he was wholly mortal. But this inference would be just as conclusive, as 
the inference that Christ is only human, because the scriptures testify of this 
humanity. Because the chief Magistrate of a nation commissions certain officers, 
and authorizes them to do particular duties, it does not folio-, that their natures 
are inferior to his. Because Christ is commissioned and authorized by the Father 
to perform the duties of an office, to which he was appointed, it does not follow, 
by parity of reasoning, that his nature is inferior to the Father's. Other testi- 
monies beside those, which relate to his humanity and mediatorial office, must 
be produced to ascertain what was that nature, which he possessed, when he 
had glory with the Father before the world was, or the nature, which was united 
with the man Christ Jesus. 

Christ, speaking of his coming to raise the dead, says, "They shall see the Son 
of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power (S'vvx./j.ii) and great glory. 
If this be a work, which belongs to his office, it does not follow that this power 
was to be given to him. As there is no intimation that he received this power 
from the Father, it is natural to infer that he was to come with his own undei iv- 
ed power. When fgova-Ht, authority is applied to Christ in the New Testament, 
it is generally expressed or implied that it v/asgiven him. When fuvijuk, power, 
is applied to him, it is neither expressed, nor implied that it was given him, ex- 
cepting when he was consecrated to the priest's office by the anointing of the 
Holy Spirit. This unction was evidently imparted to his human nature. 

The manner of Christ's performing miracles is an evidence that his power was 
not given him. At a wedding in Cana of Galilee he turned wafer into wine. It 
is recorded, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and shew- 
ed forth his glory . If this miraculous power had been given him by the Father, 
it is not strictly true that he manifested his glory; for it was his Father's glory. 
When the prophets and apostles wrought miracles, it never was recorded of then*, 
that they maniiested or shewed forth their glory. 



CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE ATUTHORITY. 133 

When Christ wrought miracles, he appeared to work in his own name and by 
his own power. His prayer at the grave of Lazarus does not militate against this 
opinion. He was wont to pray. In his human nature, and in his mediatorial ca- 
pacity, there was an evident propriety in his making intercession with the Father. 
Before he raised Lazarus, "Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father I thank 
thee that thou hast heard me; and I know that thou hearest me always; but 
because of the people, which stand by, 1 said it, that they may believe that thou 
hast sent me." This is a prayer of thanks. It contains no request for favor, or 
for extraordinary power to perform this miracle. He gave thanks to the Father 
that he had heard him. It is natural to suppose that he gave thanks for what he 
had said he was glad, or rejoiced, in the former part of the chapter. When 
Jesus heard of the sickness of his friend, he said, this sickness is not unto death, 
but for the glory of God; that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. This 
was the intent of his sickness. Instead of going directly to visit and heal his 
sick friend, "he abode two days still in the same place where he was." When 
he knew that he was dead, he stated the fact to his disciples; and he added, "I 
am glad for your sakes that J -was not there, to the intent ye may believe." It 
was for the opportunity of glorifying himself and of producing conviction in his 
disciples that he was the Son of God; that he had life in himself and quickened 
whom he would, that he was glad. It appears that it was for this opportunity 
he prayed; that it was for the hearing of this prayer; for the occurrence of this 
opportunity he gave thanks at the grave of Lazarus. This was the cause of his 
gratitude. But he said it, i. e. he gave thanks because of the people that stood 
by, that they might believe that the Father had sent him. By this act of prayer 
and the acceptance of it, he manifested the union of will and operation, which 
subsisted between him and the Father. But there is not the least intimation, nor 
evidence that he asked for power. When the prophets and apostles wrought 
miracles, they gave decisive evidence that the power was not of themselves, but 
of God. 

"As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life 
in himself," John 5:26. From this passage it is inferred by some that the Father 
gave power to the Son to raise the dead. The inference is not conclusive; and 
the sentiment appears to be unfounded. The life, which the Father had in 
himself was an eternal independent life; or it was the power of communicating 
life in any period of eternity. Either is a divine attribute and cannot be com- 
municated to a creature. But this is not the intent of the text. The import of 
it appears to be this. As the Father hath power in himself of giving life, so he 
hath given authority to the Son, to exercise the same power, which he has in 
himself. That the gift, which the Father made to the Son was authority, not 
power, is evident from the following verse. "And hath given him authority to 
execute judgment also. It appears that the same qualification, which was neces- 
sary for executing judgment, was also necessary lor raising the dead. As the 
qualification requisite for doing the former was authority, it is inferred that the 
same qualification was necessary for doing the latter. W r hen Christ had received 
this authority, it was then true, "As the Father raiseth up the dead and quick- 
eneththem, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." 

Jesus Christ calls himself the Life; the resurrection and the life. St. John 
says, "In him was life; and the Life was the light of men. The life was mani- 
fested and we have seen it; and bear witness and shew unto you that eternal 
Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." If Christ had 
not life in himself, and had not power in himself to communicate it, there appears 
to be no propriety, no pertinence in calling big), the Life. St. John calls this 
Life, eternal Life, which was with the Father. By this name he meant Christ; 
for, said he, "we have seen it; and it was manifested unto us." If he was with the 
Father, and was eternal, he had the same power to communicate life, which the 
Father had. 

Jesus Christ had authority to forgive sins. This work belongs to his mediato- 
rial office; and, of course, his authority to do it was given him. He exercised 
this authority when he was upon earth. At a certain time "They brought to 
him a man, sick of the palsy, lying on a bed; and Jesus, seeing their faith, said 
unto the sick of the palsy, son," be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee. 
And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, this man blasphemeth. 
And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said, wherefore think je evil in your hearts; 
for whether is it easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and 



134 CHRIST POSSESSES DIVINE AUTHORITY. 

walk. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power (egovrizv author- 
iiy) on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy) arise, take 
up thy bed, and go into thine house." From this account, it is inferred by some 
that the forgiving of the sins of the paralytic man was nothing more than the 
removing of his disorder; and that the power Christ exercised on this occasion, 
did not belong to his nature; but it was given him. In answer to this, let it be 
observed, that the cures, which Christ wrought upon invalids, appear to have 
been generally accompanied, or followed by a spiritual cure upon the subject. 
Admitting this to be fact, it would be generally of the same import, whether 
Christ said to an impotent person, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say. arise and 
walk. Besides, Christ sometimes declared forgiveness of sins, when no bodily 
disease existed in the object; at least, when no bodily disease was named. A 
certain woman, who was a sinner, went to Christ; washed his feet with tears; 
and wiped them with her hair. She kissed his feet and anointed them. Christ 
said unto her, "Thy sins are forgiven. — Thy faith hath saved thee." This is not 
a solitary case of forgiveness for sin through faith in Christ. Pardon of sin 
through faith in the Lord Jesus is a prominent doctrine of the New Testament. 
When Jesus met Saul of Tarsus on his journey to Damascus, he commissioned 
him to be a minister to the Gentiles, "that they may receive forgiveness of sins 
and inheritance among them, which are sanctified by Jaith that is in me" It 
would ceem strange that faith in Christ should be a condition of forgiveness, if 
he had not power in himself to forgive. It is the office of Christ to pronounce 
sentence upon the human race in the day of judgment; as it is his prerogative 
to give reward to the righteous, it appears rational that he should forgive their 
sins. There is no intimation given that he depends on foreign power for assist- 
ance in performing the duties of this high and important office. When he for- 
gave sins here upon earth, he spoke not the language of dependence. When 
he awards retribution to the human race at the great last day, he is represented 
a King, speaking the language, not of borrowed power, but the language of 
divine sovereignty. 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 



"That all men should honor the Son, even as they 
honor the Father," John 5:23. Christ has performed 
and will perform works, which require almighty 
power. Divine titles, even the highest, are given to 
him. He possesses divine attributes. He exercises 
divine authority. These things are revealed. These 
are articles of belief. These produce a practical 
effect. These demand divine honors. The sacred 
scriptures ascribe the same kind of honor to the Son, 
which they ascribe to the Father, i. e. divine honor. 
It is of importance to form correct ideas of all the 
doctrines of the scriptures. But it is peculiarly im- 
portant to form correct ideas of those doctrines, which 
directly affect the practice. It is of the first import- 
ance to render supreme honor to whom it is due, and 
to avoid idolatry. 

The sacred scriptures are a safe and sure guide on 
this subject. They asci ibe divine honors to the Son, 
in connexion with the Father, Christ's commission 
to his apostles, when he sent them to evangelize the 
world w 7 as, "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." Whether this text signifies that 
the apostles, in administering the ordinance of bap- 
tism, acted in the name, and under the authority, of the 
sacred Three; or whether it signifies that by this 
rite they initiated persons into Christianity; and united 
them to Christ's visible kingdom, it has the same bear- 



136 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

ing upon the subject under consideration. In either 
case, it connects the Son with the Father, and gives 
to each the same authority and honor. If it is divine 
honor to the Father to have control over ministering 
servants, and to have persons formally introduced into 
his kingdom, the same acts give the same honor to 
Christ. 

The Son of God, speaking of his power and author- 
ity to raise the dead, and judge the world, draws this 
conclusion, "they should honor the Son, even as they 
honor the Father." As these works require divine 
perfections, it is a just and natural inference that they 
should give him divine honor. 

Paul in his salutations to the churches, repeatedly 
says, "Grace to you and peace from God the Father, 
and the Lord Jesus Christ." If divine honor is due to 
the Father for giving grace and peace to the world, 
the same honor is due to Christ; for they come from 
him no less than from the Father. God has given to 
Christ a name, "which is above every name, that at 
the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven and things in earth, and things under the 
earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." To 
bow the knee to Jesus, signifies to worship him. That 
the knee of every thing in heaven, inearth, and under 
the earth, should bow to him, implies the universality 
of his worship. To confess Jesus Christ to be Lord, 
is to acknowledge his sovereignty; and this acknowl- 
edgment will be to the glory of God the Father. This 
acknowledgment would not be to his glory, if his Son 
were not divine. But a confession of his Son's divinity, 
implies the divinity of the Father. In the book of 
the Revelation of St. John, it is written, "And every 
creature which is in heaven and on the earth, and 
under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
that are in them, heard I saying, blessing and honor, 
and glory, and power, be unto him, that sitteth upon 
the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. I 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 137 

beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could 
number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and 
tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, 
clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 
and cried with a loud voice, saying, salvation to our 
God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb." In one of these texts, all creatures are 
brought to view, giving divine honors to him that sat 
upon the throne; and giving equal honors to the Lamb. 
In another of these texts an innumerable multitude of 
saints, ascribed the same glory to Christ, which they 
ascribed to the Father. Divine honor, or worship, 
was given to Christ, without naming the Father. By 
the Psalmist it was predicted of Christ, "blessed be 
he that cometh in the name of the Lord." This as- 
cription of honor was actually made to him by the 
multitude, who went before and followed him, when 
he was riding up to Jerusalem. 

When it was known abroad that Jesus was born, 
wise men came from the East to do him honor. Their 
design of going, was to worship him, See Matt. 2:2. 
When they saw him, they fell down and worshipped 
him. At a time when Christ was on his way to Jeru- 
salem, "The whole multitude of his disciples began 
to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, saying, 
blessed be the King, that cometh in the name of the 
Lord, peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." 
Their praising God consisted in giving blessing to the 
King, i. e. Christ; and they gave him glory in the 
highest. When the Pharisees called upon him to 
rebuke his disciples for giving him this divine homage, 
he replied, "If these should hold their peace, the 
stones would immediately cry out." Christ could not 
have expressed his approbation of their homage, nor 
his claim to divine honor, in stronger language. One 
of the malefactors, who was crucified with Jesus, 
addressed him by prayer, "Lord, remember me, when 
thou comest into thy kingdom." Christ approved and 
answered his petition. When Christ was about to 
18 



138 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

leave the world and ascend to the Father, he blessed 
his disciples. "And it came to pass while he blessed 
them, he was parted from them, and carried up into 
heaven. And they worshipped him.'''' 

When Stephen was stoned he offered up a peti- 
tion, "saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." This 
was a prayer addressed to Christ; and it was addressed 
to him, when he saw him on the right hand of God. 
He continued his petition to his Lord and said, "Lord, 
lay not this sin to their charge." 

The primitive Christians called upon the name of 
Christ; which was an act of prayer or worship. When 
the Lord commanded Ananias to go and heal Saul of 
his blindness, he replied,"! have heard by many of this 
man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at 
Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the 
chief priests to bind all, that call on thy name.'''' When 
Paul began to preach, his hearers inquired, saying, "Is 
not this he that destroyed them, which called on this 
name in Jerusalem?" "Be baptized and wash away 
thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. The same 
Lord is rich unto all that call upon him.'''' Whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, 
he saith, let all the angels of God worship him. St. John 
heard many of the inhabitants of heaven, "saying with 
a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to 
receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
and honor, and glory, and blessing." 

The pagans reproached the primitive Christians for 
giving divine honors to Christ. "Pliny, a Roman pro- 
consul celebrated for his works, giving an account to 
the emperior Trajan of their morals and doctrine, 
after being forced to^onfess that the Christians were 
pious, innocent and upright men, and that they assem- 
bled before the rising of the sun, not to concert the 
commission of crimes, or to disturb the peace of the 
empire, but to live in piety and righteousness, to detest 
frauds, adulteries, and even the coveting of wealth of 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 139 

others; he only reproaches them with chanting hymns 
in honor of their Christ, and of rendering to him the 
same homages as to a god." 

It clearly appears from the sacred scriptures and 
from history that divine honors were given to Christ. 
There is no evidence that he ever discountenanced 
the practice. There is evidence that he approved 
it. When the early Christians were accused of giving 
divine worship to Christ they did not deny the charge; 
but they gave evidence that they esteemed and rev- 
erenced him as God. 

The character, which the sacred scriptures give to 
the Son of God entitles him to divine honors. By 
inheritance he possesses a more excellent name than 
the angels. The work of creation, the performance of 
miracles in his own name, the government of all things 
are attributed to him. He has power to raise the 
dead, to judge the world, and distribute reward and 
punishment. Divine perfections are attributed to him; 
and he manifested the holiness of divine nature. As 
great works, as great authority, as exalted titles, as 
much love and excellence, are attributed to the Son as 
to the Father. If the Father is entitled to love, obedi- 
ence, sod worship, on account of the excellence of his 
nature, and the communications of his goodness, Christ 
is entitled to equal love, obedience and worship. It 
is not an arbitrary act of divine power to require peo- 
ple to honor the Son even as they honor the Father; 
for Christ, in his own nature and communications, 
demands this homage. 

It cannot justly be denied that the sacred scriptures 
require divine honors to be paid to the Son of God. It 
cannot be denied that primitive Christians, and Chris- 
tians in every age, have esteemed and worshipped 
Christ as God. This esteem and reverence for the 
Lord Jesus was derived directly from the character 
which he exhibited, and from the system of religion 
which he published, and his apostles propagated. The 
Christian religion was designed to be, and it has been 



140 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

published, among Jews and Gentiles. One great object 
of Christianity was to turn them from idolatry to the 
worship, the spiritual worship, of the only living and 
true God. When it is considered how prone mankind 
Avere to idolatry, it might be expected that the great- 
est care would be taken to avoid any intimation, which 
would give the least encouragement to idolatry. If 
Christ be a mere creature; if he be not entitled to 
divine worship, precaution was not used in the sacred 
writings against idolatry. On the contrary, they laid 
its foundation, and gave it an extensive and perpetual 
patronage. Christ claimed union with the Father in 
design and operation. He thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God. He inculcated the duty of honoring 
the Son even as they honored the Father. He allow- 
ed his disciples to call him God. He allowed them to 
worship him, and he forbade them not. His church 
has, in every age, acknowledged him to be God, and 
have worshipped him as God. If this is error, if this 
is idolatry, Christ is the author of it; the inspired 
writings support it. 

It is true, the sacred scriptures, in certain instances 
give great limitations to Jesus Christ. He acknowl- 
edges that the Father is greater than he; that he is sent 
by the Father. As Jesus Christ was both human and 
divine, it is highly probable that he would sometimes 
speak of one nature, sometimes of the other. When he 
spoke of his human nature, he would of course speak 
of it with limitations. If it be just to infer from that 
class of texts, which attribute limited properties to 
Christ, that he possesses only human nature, it is equally 
just to'infer from that class of texts, which attribute 
divine works,naraes,attributes,and worship to him, that 
he possesses only divine nature. But this is not a cor- 
rect method of reasoning. Instead of attempting to 
make one part of scripture destroy another, care ought 
to be taken to compare part with part; discover their 
connexion and object; and if possible discover their 
coincidence. If it be previously determined that the 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 141 

divinity of Christ shall not stand, every thing is made 
to bear against it. The plainest texts are tortured till 
they unwillingly speak the language of those who 
use them. If it be admitted that human and divine 
nature are united in Christ, it is easy to account for 
those divine ascriptions, which are made to him, while 
he speaks of himself possessing limited qualities. 

The sacred scriptures attribute to the Son divine 
names, divine attributes, divine offices, divine works, 
and divine worship. If Christ possessed divine nature, 
he was entitled to divine honors. If he did not possess 
divine nature, his works, his titles, his offices could not 
claim those honors, which are due to the Father. 
Moses, the other prophets, and the apostles, performed 
works which required divine power; and they filled 
high and important offices. Why was not Moses en- 
titled to divine honor for bringing miraculous plagues 
on the land of Egypt? Why was not Joshua entitled 
to divine honor for staying the sun and moon in their 
courses? Why were not the prophets and apostles 
entitled to divine honor for healing diseases and raising 
the dead? Because they did not perform these works 
by their own power. It was the power of God oper- 
ating through them, which performed these extraor- 
dinary works. This they acknowledged. They dis- 
claimed superior excellence. They disclaimed all 
title to divine honor. Moses was buried in a secret 
place to prevent the idolatry of the people at his 
grave. The apostles used the greatest care to ascribe 
all efficiency in their extraordinary works to God; and 
to prevent people from giving them divine worship. 
As well might human qualities be attributed to the 
instruments we use, as divine qualities be attributed 
to men for works, which God performed through them. 

If Christ performed his works by his own natural 
power; if his names were significant of his nature; if 
he possessed those attributes, which are ascribed to 
him in the scriptures; if he was competent in his own 
nature to fill those offices, which he sustained, he had 



142 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

a claim to divine honors. But if he was only constituted 
Creator; if he was only the medium through which 
the Father created the world; if divine names and 
attributes were attributed to him merely because he 
acted by the influence of the Father, and was appointed, 
constituted, ordained to the highest offices, he is no 
more entitled to divine honors than were the prophets 
and apostles. It is admitted that people are entitled 
to honor proportionate to their offices, if they be.ade- 
quate to the duties of their respective stations. But 
an elevated office does no honor to a man, unless he 
does honor to the office. Should our government 
appoint a minister to a foreign court, who did not 
possess one qualification for that office, and needed 
and received mediately or immediately the instruc- 
tions of the chief magistrate in every step of his pro- 
ceedings, is such a man entitled to ministerial honor? 
Ought the foreign court to honor him even as they 
honored the chief magistrate? By giving him presi- 
dential honors, would they honor the chief magistrate 
of our country? If Christ derived all his qualifications 
for his offices from the Father, the honor of all his 
official transactions would be due to the Father, not 
to him. If he were honored according to his offices, 
the Father, who established them by his own author- 
ity, and filled them with his own fulness would be 
entitled to greater honor. It would be disproportion- 
ate to honor the Son even as they honor the Father. 
It is not doubted that it is an honor to a chief magis- 
trate to honor his ministers; but it would not be an 
honor to him to transfer to them the honor, which 
was due only to himself. 

If the Son be inferior in nature to the Father, it is 
impossible to honor the Father by giving divine honors 
to the Son. It is in vain to say that those divine 
honors, which are given to the Son are given ulti- 
mately to the Father; that he is the constituted 
medium, through which God the Father is worship- 
ped; and that he does not receive divine honors for 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 143 

any excellence of his own nature, nor for any acts of 
his own power. The pagans have ever cherished a 
sentiment similar to this and they have worshipped 
accordingly. They appeared to suppose that God 
was a holy Being and that they had offended him. 
They, therefore, sought some medium, through which 
they might pay him their homage and render him 
propitious. When the heathen worshipped the sun, 
they did not design that their religious homage should 
terminate in that luminous body. But they designed 
to worship it as the most striking image of the Deity; 
or as the medium, through which he bestowed his 
greatest blessings. When they worshipped the ele- 
ments or any of the brutal creation, they imagined 
that the Deity either resided in them; or that through 
them he would operate in their favor. When they 
worshipped departed spirits, they imagined that they 
would intercede with God for them; and through 
their influence they should receive divine favors. In 
all this kind of worship they probably designed to 
extend their homage ultimately to the Deity; unless 
it were in some instances, in which they had lived so 
long in idolatry, and had become so gross in their 
worship, that they lost sight of the Deity in their 
similitudes. 

God's first command to Israel was to prevent them 
from having more than one God, and his second was 
to restrain them from idolatry. If Christ possess not 
divine nature, if he be only a subordinate Deity, it 
appears to be no less idolatry to worship him than it 
is to worship the sun, moon, the host of heaven, the 
elements, individuals of the brutal creation, or depart- 
ed spirits. 

Another argument, of no inconsiderable weight in 
favor of Christ's claim to divine honors, may be drawn 
from his own words at the institution and celebration 
of the ordinance of the supper. This do in remem- 
brance of me, Luke 22:19. The design of the Lord's 
Supper was to keep in remembrance the Lord Jesus 



144 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

Christ. When we attend the celebration of this ordi- 
nance, we are naturally carried back to him, who 
instituted it; and to the purposes he intended to 
accomplish by its observance. We find that it was 
Christ himself, who instituted this rite; and that he 
intended this as a mean of keeping in remembrance 
himself, his sufferings, and the blessings which are 
conferred in consequence of them. In the ordinance 
we behold the figure of the Lamb of God, who taketh 
away the sin of the world; the figure of the sacrifice, 
which was offered upon the cross; the figure of that 
blood, without the shedding of which there can be no 
remission. We fix our attention upon Jesus Christ, 
the Author and Finisher of faith; the Author of eternal 
salvation. This ordinance, then, not only serves to 
keep the Savior in remembrance, but it tends to excite 
in the heart love and gratitude to the Author of these 
inestimable blessings. It was enjoined by the Savior 
that this ordinance should be perpetuated in the 
Church till his second coming, the end of the world. 
He specified the object of this duty. He required 
that it should be done in remembrance of himself. 

The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians respect- 
ing their irregular attendance upon this ordinance, 
attaches the highest importance to a right perform- 
ance of this duty; and distinguished guilt to a violation 
of it. His language on this subject is strong and plain. 
"Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup 
of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body 
and blood of the Lord. He that eateth and drink- 
eth unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to him- 
self, not discerning the Lord's body." There is no sin, 
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit excepted, for which 
greater punishment is threatened, or against which it 
is made more sure, than a profanation of the Lord's 
supper. There is no duty, which appears more 
solemn or interesting than this. It is solemn, because 
it brings to view the crucifixion of the Lord of glory; 
and because he grants his special presence on the 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 145 

occasion. It is interesting, because without the sac- 
rifice, which is represented by this ordinance, there 
can be no remission of sin. Christ himself hath said, 
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink 
his blood, there is no life in you." "Whoso eateth 
ray flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." 
Let it be remarked, and let it be remembered, that 
Christ established this positive institution, and that he 
made himself the object of this duty, "This do in 
remembrance of me." 

It is generally, if not. universally, admitted, that a 
celebration of the Lord's supper is a religious service. 
It is required in the same scriptures, and by the same 
authority, by which every duty is required. After 
the work of creation was completed, God set apart the 
seventh day, that his rational creatures might com- 
memorate this important event, and observe it as a 
day of holy rest. This was undoubtedly a religious 
service, and directed to the Creator. When a more 
important event, the redemption of the world, took 
place, then the day on which it occurred, the day of 
the resurrection, was appointed for the commemora- 
tion of the work of redemption, and for divine service. 
The Lord's supper is an institution of divine appoint- 
ment, no less than the Sabbath, or public worship. 

When the members of a church attend rightly upon 
this ordinance, they bring to view what the Savior 
has done for them. They consider him the procur- 
ing cause of salvation. They look over the favors 
they have received, and those which are offered 
them; and they find none greater than the provision 
made and offered by Christ for their salvation. Was 
it a favor that they received natural life and support 
from the divine hand; it is no less a favor that they 
were redeemed from the second death, and enjoy 
spiritual support. Look over the whole catalogue of 
blessings which have come upon this world, and there 
are none greater than those conferred by Christ, and 
recognized in this ordinance. In attending upon this 
19 



146 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

rite the attention is fixed on Christ, on the benefits he 
has communicated, and those, which he offers. Love 
and gratitude are excited toward their Benefactor; 
and in the spirit of obedience, they do it in remem- 
brance of Him. Here is a religious service, as solemn 
as devotional, as interesting as any which is required 
at their hands, and it is offered to Christ. It is done 
in remembrance of Him. It is done to the honor of 
his name; and a greater honor they do not give in any 
religious service whatever. Do we honor God by 
sanctifying the Sabbath, by waiting upon him in his 
court? We honor Christ no less by professing his 
name, and commemorating his death, his love, and his 
blessings. 

Pagans had long given divine honors to distinguished 
men. Those, who were renowned in arms, or had 
done extraordinary things for their nation, were, after 
their decease, enrolled among the gods, and made the 
objects of honors, which were not due to created 
beings. This practice was displeasing in the divine 
sight. One object of Christ's coming into the world, 
was to expose the error of idolatry, and to establish 
the worship of the only living and true God. He 
knew the proneness of the human heart at that day, 
to have lords many, and gods many. He knew their 
eager disposition to catch at every thing, which would 
encourage them in the deification of departed men of 
uncommon character, and in the practice of idolatry. 
With these circumstances in view, suppose Christ 
was simply a created being, of pure intentions, and 
designing to establish a religion, which would give all 
glory to God alone, can it be supposed he would estab- 
lish a religious rite for the purpose of exalting himself 
in the affections of mankind; of keeping himself in 
everlasting remembrance in the church; and denounc- 
ing the heaviest punishment, even condemnation upon 
those, who should not suitably observe his decree, and 
do honor to his name? Had he adopted this method, 
what more could his friends have desired to justify 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 147 

themselves in placing his name among the gods, and 
of rendering him divine honors? The church generally, 
ever since the institution of this ordinance, have given 
divine honors to Christ in its celebration, and if they 
have, in this respect, fallen into idolatry, it appears 
that they have been led into this error, by the nature 
and design of this rite, and by the time and manner of 
its institution. It is strange indeed, if this holy ordi- 
nance, which was designed to be the central, the 
rallying point, of the church of God, should be the 
occasion of drawing it principally into idolatry. It is 
readily admitted, that the holiest things are perverted 
by the wicked to their destruction. But to suppose 
as intelligent and as pious part of the world as exists 
should generally, from the first institution of this ordi- 
nance, have given themselves Up to idolatry, is a 
hypothesis too big with absurdity to be believed by 
those, who would solve every difficulty in our religion 
by the efforts of reason. 

We are aware of the objection made against this 
sentiment; that the religious service, which is offered 
to Christ, is given ultimately to the Father; that the 
Son is an ambassador; that he is respected as such, 
but all the honor terminates in God. But this opinion 
appears very different from the language, which Christ 
used in the institution of the ordinance; "This do in 
remembrance of me." If he was only an ambassa- 
dor, or an inferior agent, this language appears to be 
entirely inappropriate. It appears that it would be 
offensive to God. When Moses, at the rock, made 
an assumption of power, which detracted from the 
authority of the King of Israel, he felt his sore dis- 
pleasure, and suffered for his rashness. Shall we 
offer religious service to Moses, because he was God's 
messenger to deliver the Hebrews from the land of 
bondage? Shall we offer religious service to the 
prophets and apostles, because they were messengers 
of God for the good of the world, and say, this reli- 
gious honor terminates in him, who sent them? Sc> 



148 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST- 

reason the heathen and the papists, when they bow 
down before beasts and images. But with the light 
of revelation in our eye, and the second command 
in our hand, is it possible that we can fall into this 
gross absurdity? Were there danger that we should 
love Christ too much, or that we should give him 
too much honor, would this ordinance have been 
instituted, which is calculated to excite the devoutest 
affections of our hearts toward our Redeemer, unless 
a caution were given to prevent us from holding him 
in too high estimation; and of rendering him too 
much of our service. Let us illustrate the case by an 
example: Suppose a king, whose subjects had been 
guilty of treason, and had exposed themselves to 
capital punishment, should select one of his people, 
who had not fallen into the common transgression, or 
one from another nation, to be an ambassador to treat 
with them on the terms of reconciliation between 
them and their sovereign. After every thing is done 
on his part to effect his benevolent purpose, the 
ambassador appoints a certain celebration to be ob- 
served from generation to generation, to keep himself 
in remembrance, for the services he had rendered 
them. Would he, by this method, give suitable honor 
to his king, and would not the subjects overlook the 
sovereign in the more pleasing and interesting view of 
his agent? Or, suppose the man, who was most prom- 
inent in the deliverance of our country from foreign 
oppression, should, at the declaration of independence, 
have appointed a day of festivity to be observed for 
ever, to keep himself in their remembrance, who would 
not perceive the incongruity? Who would not shudder 
at the thought that a sight of God should be lost in 
a view of the man? 

When we argue that the honor attached to this 
ordinance should be given to the Son, we would not 
be misunderstood. We hold that the Father and 
Holy Spirit, participate with him the glory of man's 
redemption. 



DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 149 

When we look upon this ordinance, observe its 
nature, design, and manner of its institution; when we 
consider the blessings, which are involved in this rep- 
resentation, and the magnitude of the sin of profaning 
this rite; when we consider, that no duty is more 
solemn, or momentous than this; that it is required of 
every believer; that it is a religious service of the 
highest grade, and that it is offered to Christ; who 
can withhold the conclusion, that we should honor the 
Son, even as we honor the Father?* 

* It is readily admitted that the word worship, the act of kneeling and of falling 
on the face to the ground, do not designate the degree of respect, which is offered 
to an object. But as these acts were often used to tender homage to God, it 
might reasonably be expected that Jesus, if he had been merely a creature, 
would have cautioned his worshippers lest they should offer him the highest 
degree of respect. When the people of Lystra would have sacrificed to Paul and 
Barnabas, they suffered them not; and told them plainly that th«y were men 
of like passions with themselves. When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet and 
worshipped, "Peter took him up, saying, stand up, I myself also am a man." 
When St. John fell down to worship" at the feet of the angel, who had shewed 
him many things, the angel said, "see thou do it not." But Christ laid no pro- 
hibition upon those who offered him similar expressions of respect. The infer- 
ence is plain, that there was no danger of their offering him too high a degree of 
homage. 

"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," John 
5:23. It has been attempted to weaken this testimony by improving the transla- 
tion in this manner; "that all men should honor the Son, because they honor the 
Father." (See Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism.) This appears to be not only 
a wrong translation of the particle, xd&ais, but a pervers on of the des : gn of the 
text. The text is the effect, or cousequence of the preceding verse. The Fath- 
er — hath committed alt judgment unto the Son, '<va, to the end that, "all men 
should honor the Son." "Though 'Iva. commonly denotes the end, for -which a 
thing is done, it often signifies the effect, or consequence of an action simply, 
without expressing the intention of the agent. 'Iva. sometimes denotes the effi- 
cient cause." (Macknight. See Schleus. Lex. on the word ) The end, or con- 
sequence of committing all judgment unto the Son is, therefore, that all men 
should honor him. But according to the proposed translation, the former part 
of the verse is the consequence of the latter part; the honoring of the Son, is to 
be the effect, or consequence of honoring the Father. By this construction the 
force of the particle, 'wo., which connects this with the preceding verse, is en- 
tirely destroyed. 

KaS-a)c, which stands for even as, in our translation, is compounded of kc.t* & 
a>C CI; is often used to denote comparison, "n? is sometimes used affirmatively, and 
must be translated indeed, truly, certainly, actually. K*Ta increases the meaning 
of the word, with which it is compounded." (VJackniglit,) According to these 
principles, the particle, x*S-&>?, is used to compare the honoring of the Son with 
the honoring of the Father. The same force, or degree of meaning, which this 
particle has in relation to the honoring of the Father, the same it has in relation 
to the honoring of the Son. See the force of KaS-a? in Mat. 21:6. 26:24. Mark 
9:13, and 15:18. 

We are not left to the natural explication of particles, and to the homage which 
Christ received on earth from his disciples, to prove that he is entitled to divine 
honors, and that he is a proper object of supplication." The scriptures testify 
that he was invoked; that he was addressed by prayer after he left the world. 
In addition to the texts, which have been cited already for this purpose, there are 
others of similar import, which may be adduced, and on which, and on those, which 
have been already quoted, we would make some critical remarks. Paul, in the 
beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, says, "Unto the church of God, 



150 DIVINE HONORS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to he 
saints, with all, that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our 
Lord." This phraseology naturally leads to the conclusion that Christians, in 
the apostles' time, addressed prayers to Jesus Christ. But this conclusion is 
evaded by an improved version of" this, and parallel texts. They are translated 
passively; viz. called by t or after the name of the Lord. (See the Improved ver- 
sion of the N. T.; Yates' Vindication of Unit'arianism; Lindsey's Second Address, 
&c.) To make this translation consist with grammatical principles, it is conceived 
that the dative, not the accusative case, ought to have been used after the par- 
ticiple. This observation is sanctioned by the authority of the LXX. See Isaiah 
43:7. But if this evidence be not sufficient to settle the meaning of the word, its 
common use by the writers of the New Testament, and by the Septuagint ought 
to determine whether it is to be taken passively or actively. When the inspired 
writers and the seventy would convey the idea that any person or thing was 
called by the name of the Lord, they uniformly used, as far as I have examined, 
a different phraseology. A translation, which violates the idiom of the original, 
and is contrary to the usual meaning of words and phrases does not become 
critical inquirers after truth. 

'•For this thing I besought the Lord thrice. And he said unto me, my grace is 
sufficient for thee; for my strength JW^k) is made perfect in weakness; most 
gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power (JW/z/c) 
of Christ may rest upon me," '2 Cor. 12:8, 9. The latter part of this passage plainly 
shews that the Lord, whom Paul besought thrice, was Christ. Here we hare a pray- 
er offered to him without any objection arising from the passive form of the verb; 
and it might reasonably be expected without any objections arising from the 
phraseology, or from the circumstances. But in opposition to this expectation, 
and to the natural tenor of the passage, as it is admitted by the most candid Uni- 
tarians, it is stated that, "St. Paul appears here to have directed his prayer to 
God, the Father. N. B. The apostles were not so exact in the use of the words, 
Lord, Savior and the like, which they indifferently gave both to God and to 
Christ, never supposing that any would mistake their Lord and Master, so lately 
born and living amongst men, to be the supreme God and object of worship." 
(Lindsey's Apology, p. 147.) It is of no use to argue with men on this subject, 
who accuse the apostles with a disregard to exactness in the application of the 
names, "Lord, Savior and the like." It is of no use to reason with them upon 
the doctrines of the Bible, till they are established in the belief of its divine 
authority; that it was written with exactness. 

But when it is admitted that Christ was the object of the apostle's invocation, 
who can object to offering him prayer? But it is thought "probable, that, when 
Paul besought him, he was present with the Apostle either in vision, or person- 
ally." (Yates.) From this supposition it is inferred that it is not proper to address 
prayer to Christ, unless he be, in some manner, visible. If visibility bf a necessary 
qualification in Christ to be an object of supplication, why is so much labor spent 
to shew that he did not receive it, and was not entitled to it, when he was 
visibly present on earth? If visibility be a necessary qualification in a being in 
order to receive divine worship, then God the Father, is destitute of a necessary 
qualification. 

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive 
my Spirit; and he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord lay not this 
sin to their charge," Acts 7:59, 60. If ever a man was qualified to make an 
appropriate prayer, and to direct it to a proper object, it seems that Stephen was 
qualified. lie -was full of the Holy Ghost. He was just going to enter the world 
of spirits. He saw, either ocularly, or mentally, the Son of man on the right 
hand of God; of course he saw both. In this plenitude of inspiration, in this 
most solemn and interesting situation, in view of death, of heaven, and of the 
glory of God, he breathed out his soul in prayer to that Savior, in whose service 
he had lived; for whose cause he was about to die; and who was able to save 
his soul. It is in vain to urge the peculiar circumstances of Stephen as the prin- 
cipal ground of his petition to Christ. The circumstances of the supplicant make 
no alteration in the being supplicated. The circumstance of Christ's being seen 
or unseen makes no alteration in his will or power to hear. He, who knew what 
was in man, when he was upon earth, is not limited in knowledge now he is in 
heaven. When he was upon the cross he granted the humble request of a 
penitent. Now he is upon a throne, he is not less entitled to prayer; nor is he 
less able to grant requests. It must be, at all times, proper to call upon him, 
because he is uhvnys able to save to the uttermost. 



CHRIST'S RAISING THE DEAD, AND JUDGING 
THE WORLD, ARE EVIDENCES OF HIS 
DIVINITY. 



"He hath appointed a day in the which he will judge 
the world in righteousness by that man, whom he hath 
ordained," x\cts 17:31. In every part of Christ's char- 
acter; in every office which he sustains; and in every 
work, which he performs, there is evidence of his 
divinity. The sacred scriptures afford abundant proof 
that he will raise the dead. Christ declared his power 
to raise himself from the dead. Speaking of laying 
down his life, he said, U I have power to lay it down; and 
/ have power to take it again," John 10:18. "Destroy 
this temple and in three days /will raise it up." He 
spake of the temple of his body. It is no more incredi- 
ble that Christ should raise his own body, than he 
should raise any other human body. The same power, 
which could raise one, could raise the other. The 
resurrection of the body of Christ is attributed to 
God. The apostle Peter in his sermon to a mixed 
multitude on the day of Pentecost, preached Christ. 
Among other things he said, "This Jesus hath God 
raised up. Ye killed the Prince of life, whom God 
hath raised from the dead. Him God raised up the 
third day, and shewed him openly." The apostle 
Paul to the Romans makes this article of belief essen- 
tial to salvation. "If thou shalt believe in thine heart 
that God hath raised him (i. e. Christ) from the dead, 
thou shalt be saved." Again he says, "God hath both 
raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his 



152 

own power." Many other passages in the sacred 
scriptures assert that God raised up Christ. It' the 
self-same work, the resurrection of the body of Jesus, 
is attributed in the same unqualified manner, both to 
Christ and to God, it follows that Christ is God. Upon 
this ground there is no impropriety in saying that 
Christ raised himself, and that God raised him from the 
dead. 

The scriptures furnish abundant evidence that Christ 
will raise the dead. Christ himself asserts, "The hour 
is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall 
hear his voice, and shall come forth." Jesus said of 
himself, "I am the resurrection and the life." The 
apostle Paul, contrasting Christ with Adam, says, "For 
since by man came death, by man also came the res- 
urrection of the dead." To the Thessalonians he 
writes thus, "The Lord himself shall descend from 
heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, 
and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first." The general resurrection is no less 
attributed in the scriptures to God. The apostle Paul, 
in his plea before Agrippa, inquires, "Why should it 
be thought a thing incredible with you that God should 
raise the dead?" To the Corinthians he declares the 
same sentiment, "God hath both raised up the Lord, 
and will also raise up us by his own power." As the 
scriptures attribute the resurrection to Christ as abso- 
lutely as to God, it is natural to infer that Christ is 
God; that there is such an inseparable union between 
him and God the Father, that the same work may, 
with propriety, be attributed to each. 

The resurrection of Christ's body is attributed to 
the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. The 
apostle Paul, in his salutation, attributes it to the 
Father. "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, 
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised 
him from the dead." Christ, upon the subject of his 
own resurrection, says, "Destroy this temple, and in 
three days / will raise it up. I have power to lay it 



EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 153 

(i. e. his life,) down and I have power to take it again." 
The same work is attributed to the Holy Spirit. 
"Christ also hath once suffered for sin; — being put to 
death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."— 
"As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth 
them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will Know- 
ing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall rais% 
up us also by Jesus." The two last passages, and many 
others attribute the resurrection indiscriminately to 
the Father or the Son. As the work of creation is 
sometimes attributed to God, sometimes to the Father, 
to the Son, to the Spirit, in like manner is the resur- 
rection attributed to them. The observations of the 
learned Macknight on this subject, in a note on 1 Peter 
3:18, are important. "As Christ was conceived in the 
womb of his mother, by the Holy Spirit; Luke 1:35, 
so he was raised from the dead by the same Spirit; 
on which account he is said, 1 Tim. 3:16, to have been 
justified by the Spirit; and Heb. 9:14, to have offered 
himself without fault to God through the eternal Spirit. 
It is true the resurrection of Christ, is ascribed to the 
Father, I Cor. 6:14. 2 Cor. 4:14. Ephes. 1:20. But 
that is not inconsistent with Peter's affirmation in this 
verse. For the Father may, with the strictest pro- 
priety, be said to have done what the Spirit did by his 
appointment; especially as it was done to shew that 
God acknowledged Jesus to be his Son: What our 
Lord said concerning his own resurrection, John 2:19, 
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up, 
is to be understood in the same manner. For having 
told the Jews, John 10:18, / have power to lay down 
my life, and I have power to take it again, he added, this 
commandment 1 received of my Father. Christ's resur- 
rection being an example as well as a proof of our res- 
urrection, he was raised by the agency of the Spirit, 
perhaps, to shew that we shall be raised by the same 
power, exerted agreeably to the will of God and of 
Christ; on which account the resurrection of the dead 
is ascribed sometimes to the Father, Acts 26:8. 1 Cor. 
20 



154 EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 

6:14. Heb. 11:19; but more frequently to the Son, 
John 5:28. 6:39,40. 1 Cor. 15:21, &c. lThess.6:16, 
&c. As the resurrection is attributed indiscriminately 
to the Father and the Son, it appears there is a union 
between them, which does not subsist between two 
distinct natures. As the Son acts insubordination to, 
,and by the appointment of, the Father, what he does 
may, with propriety, be attributed to the Father. As 
the Spirit acts in subordination to, and by the appoint- 
ment of, the Son, what he does may, with propriety, 
be attributed to the Son. As there is a union of 
nature subsisting between the Father, the Son and the 
Spirit; as the two latter act in offices subordinate to 
that of the former, the same work may be attributed 
to each individually, or to them all collectively. Upon 
this ground, the resurrection of Christ's body, and the 
general resurrection, may be attributed to the Father, 
to the Son, to the Holy Spirit, or to God, without 
these distinctions. 

It is impossible to determine how great are the 
powers of the highest created intelligence, or what 
he could, or could not do by his native strength- But 
there are certain works recorded in the Scriptures, 
which were effected by divine power. "In the begin- 
ning God created the heavens and the earth. The 
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man 
became a living soul." It appears that it would 
require no less power, knowledge and wisdom to 
reorganize and reanimate a human body reduced to 
dust, than it required originally to form one of dust. 
He, who will raise the dead, must have knowledge of 
all the human bodies deceased from the beginning to 
the end of the world. He must discriminate between 
that matter, which composed those bodies and other 
matter. He must know whether that matter, which 
was united with the soul at the time of separation, or 
whether the matter, which was united with it at some 
other period, or whether all the matter, which had 



EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 155 

ever been attached to it, is to be raised. At different 
ages the body is composed of different matter. It 
sometimes occurs that, in consequence of amputation, 
different parts of the body are laid in places far re- 
mote from each other. Many human bodies have 
been consumed by beasts of prey and by fishes of the 
sea; and have made additions to their bodies. Some 
of the human race have been devoured by their fellow 
creatures; and one human body has become incorpo- 
rated with another. What eye can bring into one 
view all the disorganized human matter which from 
the first to the last age of the world, lies scattered 
through the earth? What eye can distinguish between 
human dust and common dust? What eye can distin- 
guish between human matter and those animal bodies, 
which have been nourished by it; or can distinguish 
between human bodies, which have been blended by 
cannibals? What power can, with one call, collect 
from the four winds all the slumbering dust of the 
whole human family? What wisdom can reorganize 
the inanimate bodies of the human race; and give to 
each its former proportion, features and likeness; and 
unite with each its own spirit? What power, knowl- 
edge, and wisdom, are competent to the performance 
of this work? This appears to be as great as the 
works of God; and it appears that divinity only is 
equal to its accomplishment. 

Christ will not only reorganize human bodies, but 
he will effect a certain change upon them. The bodies 
of the righteous, whether in the grave, or alive upon 
the earth, will be made incorruptible and spiritual. 
"We look (says St. Paul) for the Savior, the Lord 
Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it 
may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.' , It is 
probable that the bodies of the wicked will undergo a 
change by the resurrection, not less than that of the 
righteous; that they will appear as much more inglo- 
rious, as the righteous will appear more glorious than 
they did in this world. The prophet Daniel observes, 



156 EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 

"Many of them that sleep in ihe dust of the earth 
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt." This relates prima- 
rily to Israel; but it undoubtedly alludes to the resur- 
rection at the end of the world. He alone, who 
formed the natural body, can make it a spiritual and 
glorious body; or change it for its shame and everlasting 
contempt. 

After Christ has raised the dead he will judge the 
world. The Scriptures abundantly testify that Christ 
will be Judge at the last day. "The Son of man shall 
come in his glory and all the holy angels with him; 
and then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. 
And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he 
shall separate them, one from another, as a shepherd 
divideth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set 
the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
The Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all 
judgment unto the Son; and hath given him authority 
to execute judgment because he is the Son of man," 
When Peter preached Christ to Cornelius and to those, 
who were with him, he said, "He commanded us to 
preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he, 
which was ordained of God to be Judge of quick and 
dead. We shall all stand before the judgment scat of 
Christ." The apostle Paul charged Peter "before 
the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and 
the dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 

The judgment of the world is also attributed to 
God. "He, (i. e. Jehovah) shall judge the world with 
righteousness, and the people with his truth." The 
judgment of God is according to truth. I saw the 
dead small and great stand before God, and the books 
were opened, and another book was opened, which 
is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of 
those things, which were written in the books, accord- 
ing to their works. He hath appointed a day, in the 
which he will judge the world in righteousness by that 
man (iv avfyi) whom he hath ordained, Acts 17:31. 



EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 157 

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men 
by Jesus Christ, (£/# fvi<rov %^ittou.) In that passage, 
in which it is said God will judge the world 'by that 
man, the word in the original, translated by, frequently 
signifies in. Admitting this translation to be correct, 
the text will stand thus, "'He hath appointed a day in the 
which he will judge the world in righteousness in that 
man, whom he hath ordained." This is parallel with 
another passage of scripture, which says, "God was 
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." The 
original words in both texts are the same. In the 
other passage, in which it is said, "In the day when 
God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." 
The original word rendered by, (with a genitive) is 
connected sometimes with the efficient cause; and 
sometimes it signifies in* Admitting these construc- 
tions, and it follows that Christ was God, or that 
God was in Christ. When it is asserted that the 
Father judgeth not; but that God judgeth and Christ 
judgeth, it is a fair inference, that Christ is the God 
who judgeth. 

Christ will pronounce sentence upon the human 
race, and he will distribute reward and punishment. 
"The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, 
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man 
according to his works," Matt. 16:27. To them on 
his right hand he will say, "Come, ye blessed of my 
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world," Mat. 25:34. "Then 
shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the king- 
dom of their Father," Mat. 13:43. 

Christ will inflict punishment on the wicked. 
"Then shall he say to them on the left hand, Depart 
from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
the devil and his angels. These shall go away into 
everlasting punishment. The Lord Jesus Christ shall 
be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in 
flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not 

* See Macknight on fin. 



158 EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 

God; and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
of his power. The wrath of God abideth on him." 

He that will judge the world, must know all the 
secrets of the human heart, and all the actions of 
human life. He must know the motive, he must know 
the quality of every act. He must know the differ- 
ent degrees of guilt, of different sins; and he must 
know the exact proportion of reward, which is prom- 
ised to the various servants of God. What intelli- 
gence possesses this vast extent of knowledge? What 
intelligence can hold the balance, and weigh with 
perfect accuracy every thought, word, and action of 
the human race? What intelligence can hold the bal- 
ance, and weigh out retribution in just proportion to 
human characters? What intelligence can hold the 
scales of justice in one hand, and the scales of mercy 
in the other; weigh with both, without partiality, and 
without interference? He, whose eyes are as a flame 
of fire, who searcheth the hearts, and trieth the reins 
of the children of men; he, whose mercy unites with 
justice without counteraction; he, who unites in him- 
self divinity and humanity; he alone, is competent to 
judge between God and man. 

The awful grandeur, which will attend Christ at 
the last day, proves his superior nature and dignity. 
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and 
all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon 
the throne ofjiis glory." He will come "in the clouds 
of heaven, with power and great glory; and he shall 
send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and 
they shall gather together his elect from the four 
winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Then 
shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Before him 
shall be gathered all nations." To add, if possible, to 
the solemnity and grandeur of this scene, "The 
heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the 



EVIDENCES OP CHRIST'S DIVINITY. 159 

elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, 
and the works that are therein shall be burnt up." 
Who is this personage, and what is his nature, who 
will display all this power and authority; who will 
receive all the honors, which heaven and earth can 
bestow, and will sit on the right hand of the Father? 
It is he, who was in a manger. It is he, who thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God. It is he, who 
searcheth the hearts and trieth the reins of the chil- 
dren of men; who is "the true God;" who is "God 
over all, blessed for ever." 



ON THE HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION OF 
JESUS CHRIST. 



"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not rob- 
bery to be equal with God; but made himself of no 
reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, 
and was made in the likeness of men; and being found 
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 
Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given 
him a name, which is above every name; that at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father," 
Philippians 2:6 — 11. Much ingenuity and learning 
have been bestowed upon this quotation of scripture 
to deprive it of its natural meaning, and to prove the 
Son's essential inferiority to the Father. The phrase, 
"being in the form of God," has been thought to 
import no more than that similarity of nature, which 
may subsist between a creature and its Creator; as 
God made man in his own image. If Christ had been 
in the form of God in this low sense only, he would 
have thought it robbery to represent himself to be 
equal with God. He would have considered it an 
infringement upon the divine prerogative. There 
would be no pertinency in the assertion of the apostle, 
that he was made in the likeness of men, and was 
found in fashion as a man. It would not be true that 
he humbled himself by appearing in this manner. 



Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 161 

The time, in which the apostle says Christ was in 
the form of God, was prior to his incarnation. The 
word form ({u>2$vi) in this passage does not signify nature 
or essential attributes. It signifies the external appear- 
ance, or similitude. It signifies that visible light, in 
which the Deity dwells, which no man can approach 
unto; and by which he appeared to the world before 
the incarnation. When Christ was transfigured, his 
form (according to the original) was changed; i. e. 
his outward appearance became different from what 
it was before. Whatever the form of God was, in 
which Christ was before he appeared in human nature, 
he laid it aside while he tarried upon earth, previous 
to his crucifixion. He made himself of no reputation. 
In the original it is, he divested himself; he laid 
aside those glorious appearances which he exhibited 
in heaven; and relinquished those divine honors which 
he there received. But during his humiliation, he 
did not lay aside his divinity; he did not lay aside his 
authority, nor his right to divine honors. He only 
concealed the glories of his divine nature, under the 
veil of humanity. On particular occasions he dis- 
played divine power in the performance of miracles. 
At a time when he was with his disciples on a moun- 
tain, his appearance was changed. "His face did 
shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the 
light. Jesus charged them, saying, tell the vision to 
no man until the Son of man be risen again from the 
dead." Christ used great precaution against display- 
ing the glories of his nature. W T hen he did display 
them, he did it on special occasions, for the 
special purpose of giving evidence that he was the 
Messiah. 

"Christ, being in the form of God, thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God." The latter part of 
this passage in the original, has been variously under- 
stood, and variously translated. Some have thought 
U imports that Christ did not think of the robbery of 
21 



162 Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 

making himself equal with God; that he was conscious 
he had no claim to such high pretensions; and there- 
fore, he did not make them. Others have thus trans- 
lated the text, he thought it not robbery to be like 
God. This translation reduces the sense of the origi- 
nal. The other wholly perverts it. The original 
word, (/(?■«,) which is rendered like, literally signifies 
equal, as the translators of the Bible have rendered it. 
If like were a correct translation of the original word, 
the apostle made no advance in sense, as he progressed 
in his observations. It would be worse than tautology 
to say, "who being in the form" (or likeness) of God, 
thought it not robbery to be like God. The phrase, 
"form of God," imports divine likeness. Having said 
that he was in the likeness of God, it amounts to 
nothing, to say, it was not robbery to be in the like- 
ness of God; or to be what he was. The apostle Paul 
was too well versed in language to be guilty of such 
gross incorrectness. Likeness does not necessarily 
imply equality. Let the apostle say, who being in the 
form or likeness of God, thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God, and he rises in his ideas, as he pro- 
gresses in his observations. Judicious critics in the 
Greek language admit that the translation of this 
passage, as it stands in the Bible, is correct. If any 
creature should claim equality with God, it would be 
a daring robbery of divine honors. If Christ be not 
eternal, self-existent and independent, he cannot justly 
claim equality with God. A learned and distinguished 
divine* of the beginning of the last century, speaking 
of the correctness of the translation of the text under 
consideration, as it stands in the Bible, observes, "The 
ancientest versions of the New Testament favor this 
rendering; the Greek and Latin fathers, from the 
fourth century downwards, do as plainly countenance 
it. Nay, Tertullian of the second or third century, 
seems to have understood it in the same sense. The 

* Waterland. 



ghrist's humiliation and exaltation. 163 

words will, in strict propriety, bear it; and not only 
so, but more naturally and properly than any *bther." 

Although Christ claimed equality with God; yet 
"he made himself of no reputation;" he divested him- 
self of the form of God, and relinquished those honors, 
which he had received; "and took upon him the form 
of a servant, and was made" (or born) "in the like- 
ness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, 
he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross." His taking the form 
of a servant, does not mean that he was actually a 
servant; that he was under those restraints, which are 
peculiar to a state of servitude. But he had the 
appearance of a servant. He performed the duties 
of a servant. He said to his disciples, "I am among 
you as he who serveth." Like a servant, he had no 
property; he lived in poverty, and was used with 
contempt. "At length he died the death of a con- 
demned slave; being publicly scourged and crucified." 

Christ's being born in the likeness of men does not 
mean that he had the appearance of a man without 
the reality. The original word (d/xo*w|x#) signifies not 
only likeness, but sometimes sameness of nature. (See 
Macknight on the text) Christ had a human body; 
he had human passions. He felt those joys and afflic- 
tions, which are common to humanity. "Being found 
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." 
He not only took upon himself human nature and ap- 
peared in fashion as a man, exposed to all the natural 
evils common to human life. He not only humbled 
himself to do the obliging offices of a servant; but he 
became obedient unto death, even to the most igno- 
minious death. He, who had shared divine honors 
in heaven with the Father, cbndescended to assume 
human nature; to appear in the lowest condition of 
human life; to receive all the ignominy and reproach 
which the world could cast upon him; and to suffer 



164 Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 

ody^ with 
union, to expire under the tortures of the cross. 

If Christ was only a man, there is nothing very 
peculiar in his state of humiliation. There is nothing 
surprising that a man should have been born in the 
likeness of men and be found in fashion as a man. 
There is nothing surprising that a man should be in 
the form of a servant and do the duties of a servant. 
It is not a singular case that a man has suffered the 
tortures of the cross. Nor is it a singular case that a 
man has died in defence of his religion, whether it was 
true or false. But that he, who claimed equality with 
God, should descend to this low condition is a degree 
of humiliation to which created intelligence cannot 
descend. 

On account of Christ's exceedingly great condescen- 
sion and humiliation, God hath exalted him exceedingly; 
"and given him a name, which is above every name." 
As a consequence or reward of Christ's sufferings, 
God hath exalted him. He hath raised him from that 
low condition, in which he was upon earth, and exalted 
him to that glory, which he had with the Father 
before the world was. Christ humbled himself in 
union with human nature, and he will be exalted in 
union with the same nature. Some have supposed 
that Christ's exaltation has made real additions to his 
dignity and glory. They argue that divinity is inca- 
pable of advancement, and of course they infer that 
he is not divine. It is readily granted that no real 
accession can be made to divinity. It is as perfect 
and glorious at one point in duration as at another. 
Before creation, before redemption, Christ was as per- 
fect in his nature as he is now. He had power to 
create, and he had power to redeem. As he had not 
then exercised those powers, the honor of those works 
could not be actually ascribed to him. If he had not 
descended from heaven to earth, and stooped to the 
lowest conditions of human nature, he could not be 
glorified for his condescension. If he had not suffered 



Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 169 

and died, the glory of redemption would not have 
been ascribed to him. The attributes, which he has 
displayed in the work of redemption, appear more 
distinguishing than those he displayed in creation. He 
appears more exalted than he would have done, if he 
had not performed this work. God has given him 
the name Jesus, signifying Savior, which is above 
every name; and he requires all, who are in heaven, 
in earth, and under the earth, to worship him, not only 
as Creator and Lord, but as Savior of the world. 
Before his incarnation he was not honored as actual 
Savior. But since he has wrought out a complete 
redemption, and returned to heaven, a new glory ap- 
pears, and higher honors are attributed to him than 
those he received before his incarnation. After he 
had completed the work of redemption by rising from 
the dead, he declared to his disciples that all author- 
ity was given to him in heaven and in earth; and when 
he ascended to heaven he was seated on the right 
hand of the Father. Because he was the Son of man; 
because he did great and benevolent deeds in his 
union with human nature all judgment was committed 
to him. 

This high exaltation of the Son will be to the glory 
of God the Father. Is it possible that any creature 
is raised to such an amazing degree of elevation above 
every other creature, arid be the object of their most 
respectful homage? Is it possible that God has ad- 
mitted a creature to his right hand, and suffers him 
to possess all authority? Would this be for the glory 
of God the Father? Such is the union of nature, 
design and operation, between the Son and the Father, 
that they, who honor the Son, honor the Father; and 
what exalts and glorifies one, exalts and glorifies the 
other. If this inseparable union of nature do not 
subsist between the Father and the Son, two distinct 
and separate objects are holden forth, each of which 
commands supreme love and veneration, and we are 



166 Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 

left in the unavoidable dilemma of paying religious 
homage to two divinities, or to none. 

Christ in his state of exaltation makes intercession 
for believers. In that body which was offered in sac- 
rifice, he appears before the Father in their behalf. 
He pleads the merits of his own sufferings, and the 
Father, who remembers his covenant and loves his 
Son, hears his requests, and his intercession is effec- 
tual* 

* The phrase,/orm of God, {/uo^n Qtov,) may be explained by the subsequent 
phrase, form of a servant, (/uo^tiv J~ov\ou.) The word form, in the latter phrase, 
does not signify reality, or nature. For Christ was not literally a servant, or 
bondman, to any one. But he assumed the appearance of one in this low con- 
dition; and occasionally officiated in this servile capacity. Christ said to his dis- 
ciples, "I am among you as he that serveth," Luke 22:27. If the form of a 
servant does not literally signify a servant, the ,/brm of God does not literally 
signify God. But the word form, in connexion with God, expresses the resem- 
blance of appearance, on the same ground as it does when it is used in connexion 
with servant. If it was in human nature, Christ appeared in the form of a ser- 
vant, it appears to be a fair conclusion, it appears to be giving equal meaning to 
the word form in both cases, that it was in divine nature he appeared in the 
form of God. 

It is evident from the language of the apostle, that Christ was in the form of 
God, before he was in the form of a servant. This proves his pre-existence. The 
primitive form of God, which he possessed, was undoubtedly that glory which he 
had with the Father before the world was; and to be restored to which he prayed. 
This construction appears evident, both from fact and from the language of the 
apostle. It is fact that when Christ was upon earth, he had not that glory, that 
form of God, which he had before. This is proved by his prayer, "O Father, 
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the 
•world was," J ohn 17:5. The apostle's language is consonant with this. But 
made himself of no reputation. (wi/roV mwutre.) These words literally signify, 
fie divested, or emptied himself But of what did he divest himself? Not of his 
original nature, nor of his miraculous powers. For he retained both while he 
was upon earth. He undoubtedly divested himself of that, which he formerly 
had; but of which he was then destitute. This was the glory, or the form of 
God, which he had with the Father before the world was. 

We do not maintain that this, simply considered, proves the divinity of Christ. 
But let us proceed with the apostle, in his consequence, as he rises on the subject. 
Thought it not robbery to be equal -with God. It is not necessary to quote all 
the translations of this contested text. Some of the best critica of the Greek 
language, have decided that our common translation is correct. The principal 
difference of opinion respecting this text, at the present day, arises from the dif- 
ferent translations of the word <<ra. Some translate it equal; others translate it 
as, or like. It is agreed on both sides that i<ro;, from which int is derived, signi- 
fies equal. But we are not informed by what authority, or by what misfortune, 
the derivative has lost more than half its meaning in its descent from its primitive. 
The original word in the New Testament, standing for like and as, is not, as far 
as I have examined, icra.. That it should occur in this place, for the first time in 
this sense, appears not a little extraordinary. A remark of the learned Poole, 
on this word, is pertinent and forcible. Nam verba substantiva cum adverbio 
scepi adverbii significationem faciunt nomenclem. This signification of an ad- 
verb, in connexion with a substantive verb, he proves by quotations from Homer. 

The connexion of the apostle's discourse renders it necessary that wa should 
signify more than likeness. The expression, form of God signifies, at least, as 
much as divine likeness. Admitting the position, in the first place, that Christ 
was like God, the apostle said nothing to the purpose, if he only said that Christ 



Christ's humiliation and exaltation. 167 

thought it not robbery to be like God; i. e. he thought it not robbery to be like 
what he was like. The learned apostle did not waste his words in such repeti- 
tion, such impertinence. 

The design of the apostle was to inculcate a spirit of humility from the exam- 
ple of Christ. But if Christ was OBly like God, in consequence of extraordinary 
communications made to him, his humiliation was no greater, to appearance, 
than the humiliation of the prophets and apostles; at least, it was not of a differ- 
ent kind. For they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and they officiated 
as servants of the people. But they are not exalted as Christ was. The rea- 
son is plain. Being creatures, they were not capable of so low humiliation as the 
Son of God was; neither were they capable of such exceeding exaltation. 

Christ not only divested himself of divine glory while he was upon earth; but 
he humbled himself in his human nature. He not only lived like a servant, but 
he died like a malefactor. He was obedient unto death, even the death of the 
cross; a death the most painful, and the most ignominious. This he suffered, 
not by compulsion, but voluntarily. In consequence of this low state of humilia- 
tion, Go*/ highly exalted him. He restored him to that glory, which he origi- 
mally had; and made all intelligent beings bow the knee in religious veneration 
at his name; and every tongue confess that he is Lord of all. This exaltation, 
which was the consequence, or reward of his humiliation, added nothing to his 
real dignity, nor to the attributes of his nature. But it displayed perfections of 
his nature, which would not otherwise have been manifested; and it called forth 
honors from his creatures, which would not otherwise have been rendered. 



CHRIST'S DIVINITY ARGUED FROM THE PLACE 
HE HOLDS IN OUR SYSTEM OF RELIGION, AND 
IN BELIEVERS' HEARTS. 



In the history of creation, God, without the revealed 
distinctions of Father, Son and Spirit, is the grand 
agent; the grand object of love and reverence. He 
created the world and tenanted it with animal and in- 
telligent life; and established laws for their support 
and regulation. This history is concise; and the 
period, from the date of creation till the apostasy, 
is undoubtedly short. Here commences a new era; 
here a new and prominent personage rises to view. 
A new character is exhibited to repair the ruins of 
the fall; and this character runs through the Old; and 
it is the leading, the distinguishing subject of the New 
Testament. 

Immediately after the history of creation, the his- 
tory of redemption begins- No sooner is human 
nature defaced, than a method begins to be unfolded, 
by which it is to be repaired. It was early promised 
that the Seed of the woman should bruise the ser- 
pent's head. A promise of similar import was made 
to Abraham; "In thee shall all families of the earth 
be blessed." It is evident that this prediction related 
to Jesus Christ, because the apostle Paul quoted it in 
allusion to him, "The scripture foreseeing that God 
would justify the heathen through faith, preached 



Christ's divinity argued. 169 

before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall 
all nations be blessed." This promise was repeated to 
Abraham; and it was renewed to his son Isaac. Jacob, 
when blessing his sons, spoke in the language and in 
the spirit of prophecy. When he came to bless his 
son Judah, he perceived that from him the Messiah 
would descend; and he pronounced this striking 
prophecy, "The sceptre shall not depart from Jadah, 
nor a law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh 
come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people 
be." When laws were given to Israel to regulate 
their conduct in the land of promise, a prediction con- 
cerning the Messiah was also communicated by Moses. 
"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet 
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, 
unto him shall ye hearken." When Balaam took up 
his parable respecting Israel, the most prominent part 
of his prediction related to the Messiah. He speaks 
of him under the similitude of a Star, that should come 
out of Jacob, and a Sceptre that should rise out of 
Israel. 

As the time of Christ's advent approached, proph- 
ets appear to have been endued with a greater portion 
of the spirit of prophecy. They appear to have had 
clearer views of the Messiah; and they predicted his 
coming with greater clearness and precision. The 
prophet Isaiah had a clear and animating view of the 
Messiah. So lively were his apprehensions, that he 
gave some of his prophetic descriptions in the present 
time. In view of the nativity of Jesus, he said, "The 
Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold a virgin 
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name 
Immanuel. Of the increase of his government and 
peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of 
David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to estab- 
lish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth 
even for ever. There shall come forth a rod out of 
the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his 
roots. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; 
22 



170 Christ's divinity argued. 

and the government shall be upon his shoulder. Be- 
hold rny Servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom 
my soul delightetb; I have put my Spirit upon him; 
he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. Thus 
saith the Lord God, behold I lay in Zion for a founda- 
tion, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a 
sure foundation." The same prophet proceeds to de- 
scribe his state of humiliation. "He hath no form nor 
comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no 
beauty that we should desire him. He is despised 
and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted 
with grief; and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; 
he was despised and we esteemed him not. He was 
wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 
iniquities, &c. — He shall see of the travail of his sout 
and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my 
righteous Servant justify many; for he shall bear their 
iniquities." 

Other prophets had a view of an approaching 
Savior; and they foretold his coming. They even 
pointed out the time and place of his nativity. "When 
Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my 
Son out of Egypt. Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, 
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, 
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to 
be Ruler in Israel. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of 
Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy 
King cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation, 
lowly and riding upon an ass; and a colt, the foal of 
an ass. One shall say unto him, what are these wounds 
in thy hands? Then shall he answer, those with 
which I was wounded in the house of my friends. 
They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 
Awake, O sword; smite the Shepherd and the sheep 
shall be scattered. They pierced my hands and my 
feet. They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my 
thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. They part my 
garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 
He was numbered with transgressors. Thou wilt not 



Christ's divinity argued. 171 

leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption. They shall look on me 
whom they have pierced." 

These are some of the prophecies in the Old Tes- 
tament, which relate to the Messiah. So important 
and conspicuous a place did they hold in the Jewish 
scriptures that Christ was the grand object of the 
desires and expectations of the nation of the Jews. It 
is evident that these predictions related to the Mes- 
siah, because they were visibly fulfilled in him. 

Other characters and other events, are also pre- 
dicted in the Old Testament. Cyrus was foretold; 
he was called by name. He was .appointed to an 
important place; to do important business; to subdue 
nations; to loose the loins of kings. But he was only 
an instrument in the hand of God, by whom he did his 
pleasure on Babylon. He is only glanced at in pro- 
phecy. His deeds were of limited consequence; nor 
were thdy followed by a lasting and important train 
of events. John the Baptist was foretold. But his 
character becomes interesting and distinguishing, prin- 
cipally because he was the forerunner of him, that 
should come. Like the harbinger of the morning, he 
shone with considerable distinction till the Sun of 
righteousness arose; then his lustre was lost in the 
splendor of the great Light of the world. But Christ 
was the grand object of prophecy, from the apostasy 
till his appearance in the world. Patriarchs and 
prophets, by an eye of faith, saw his day and were 
glad. Balaam, a prophet of the Gentiles, saw the 
Star of Jacob shining at a distance; and under the 
guidance of God's Spirit he blessed Israel with a prom- 
ise of a Savior. The believing Jews understood those 
prophecies, which particularized the Messiah, pur- 
porting, a divine Redeemer. Those appearances of 
divinity, recorded in the Old Testament, were un- 
doubtedly understood to be those of the Son of God. 
Moses, by faith, had knowledge of Christ; for he 
"esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than 



172 Christ's divinity argued. 

the treasures of Egypt." God sent his Angel before 
Israel in the wilderness. He informed them that his 
name was in him. He cautioned them not to provoke 
him. They undoubtedly understood that this Angel 
was Christ. The apostle Paul says, some of them 
tempted Christ, and were destroyed of serpents. All 
other prophecies in the Old Testament, are of small 
consideration, excepting in their connexion with the 
prophecies respecting the Messiah; or as they have a 
bearing upon his coming into the world. The pro- 
phecies respecting the rise and fall of nations and 
empires are of small importance, excepting in their 
bearing upon the kingdom of the Redeemer. The 
prophecies respecting the nation of the Jews, derive 
almost all their importance from this consideration, 
they were the people, to whom the Messiah was 
revealed; and from whom he was to descend. 

The most important events recorded in the Old 
Testament, relate, in some way, to the Messifh. The 
preservation of Noah and his family, from the general 
destruction by the deluge, represents, in a lively man- 
ner, the preservation of the church by Christ, from 
the destruction of the corrupt mass of the world. 
Abraham was called that he might receive a revela- 
tion of an approaching Savior. Isaac was spared, 
when his father was just ready to sacrifice him upon 
the altar, because, from him the desire of nations was 
to descend. Jacob and his family were preserved 
during a long famine, because from his lineage a 
Savior was to arise. They were selected to be the 
peculiar depository of divine revelation, and from 
whom a Savior was to proceed. For this purpose 
they were preserved, in a great measure, distinct 
from other people. For the same purpose they were 
preserved in Egypt; delivered from bondage; miracu- 
lously preserved in their passage through the Red 
Sea; supported in the wilderness; led to Canaan, and 
carried through all their vicissitudes, till the grand 
Object of their expectations appeared. The history 



Christ's divinity argued. 



173 



of the Old Testament would lose much of its import- 
ance and interest, were it not for its distinguishing 
character, the Messiah. 

Sacrifices and offerings were early instituted by 
divine authority. Rites and ceremonies were estab- 
lished. Types and symbols denoted that some great 
personage would appear. Of what importance was 
the blood of beasts; of what importance was it to burn 
their bodies in sacrifice on the altar? Of what im- 
portance were all the rites and ceremonies, which 
were instituted? The blood of beasts had not virtue 
in itself to take away sin. But it represented the 
blood of the Lamb of God, which was to make expia- 
tion for the sins of the world. It became an expiation 
for sin only, as it was appointed to represent the pre- 
cious blood of Jesus, which was offered as an expiatory 
sacrifice. The Jewish rites and ceremonies were 
important only, as they were appointed to prefigure 
some trait in his character, some circumstance in his 
life, or some feature in his offices. Priests were ap- 
pointed by divine authority, to make intercession for 
the people; and to offer sacrifice upon the altar. 
Their character and office became important only, as 
they were appointed emblems of the character and 
office of the Savior. The grand scope of the Old 
Testament history, of the prophecies, of the promises, 
of the sacrifices, of the types and shadows, was the 
Messiah. They derive their importance from their 
concentration in him. Blot this grand personage from 
the Old Testament, and its history becomes insipid; 
its promises become fallacious; its sacrifices lose all 
their efficacy; its types and shadows are shadows still; 
and the Jewish economy was but a prototype of the 
present, gross idolatries of the eastern nations. 

The New Testament commences with a history of 
the same illustrious character. Preparations are fully 
made. The predicted time arrives. Representations 
cease; and the glorious reality, the Desire of all nations, 
appears. The first books of the New Testament 



174 Christ's divinity argued. 

give a history of the birth, life, and death of Jesus 
Christ. In these books he inculcates, upon his own 
authority, a system of the most sublime and interest- 
ing truths, demands assent; and by the same authority 
he lays down a system of rules for the regulation of 
human life. He exhibits himself in union with the 
Father; doing the same works, Avhich the Father did; 
and claiming the same honors. He exhibits himself 
Savior of the world; requires faith in his name; requires 
supreme love; requires the relinquishment of every 
thing for his sake. Upon his own authority, and by 
virtue of his own merits, he promises forgiveness of 
sin, upon conditions, which he proposes. He holds all 
authority in heaven and on earth. He sends the 
Holy Spirit into the human heart, to prepare a people 
for himself. He magpifies the divine law, and makes 
it honorable, by making a propitiation for sin. He is 
the foundation of the church; and his word secures it 
against every attack. He will raise the dead; judge 
the world, and distribute retribution. 

To confirm these truths he exhibited a holy life;, 
and in his own name he performed works, which 
almighty power alone could perform. To confirm 
the faith of his followers, as well as to make expiation 
for sin, he suffered what he had predicted. He com- 
missioned apostles to spread and inculcate the religion, 
which he had taught. He vested them with authori- 
ty to work miracles in his name. In their writings 
they illustrated and enforced his doctrines. The 
most prominent feature of their epistles was Jesus 
Christ crucified; and the remission of sin through faith 
in his name. If they gloried, they gloried in Christ. 
They gloried in tribulation for his sake. They rejoic- 
ed that they were accounted worthy to suffer for 
Jesus Christ. 

The revelation which Jesus Christ made to St. John, 
completes the sacred Scriptures; and it completes the 
history of the world. The leading subject of this 
book is Christ and his church. This subject runs 



Christ's divinity argued. 175 

through the whole New Testament. It is its life and 
its spirit. 

Who is this personage that appears so often in the 
Old, and breathes in almost every line of the New 
Testament? Is it a man, a mere man? Was it for a 
man, that a series of prophets during four thousand 
years predicted his coming, and longed to see his day? 
Was it in allusion to a man, that during this long period, 
beasts without number were consumed upon the altar? 
Was it to represent a man, that, during this long period, 
types and shadows were used? Or was it for a super- 
angelic creature, or for a temporary, limited depend- 
ent son, that the vast preparations of four thousand 
years were made? Was it to introduce either of these 
into the world, that the wheels of providence rolled 
on undisturbed during this vast length of time? The 
preparation would then be vastly disproportionate to 
the dignity of the personage. The representation 
would far exceed the reality. Infinite wisdom decides 
against this disproportion. Would the divine Being 
employ a second volume to give the character, and 
record the doctrines and precepts of any of his most 
exalted creatures? Would he give to the world a 
religion formed by created wisdom? 

Extraordinary characters are left upon sacred 
record, which represent Jesus Christ. So illustrious 
was Abraham, that he was called the father of many 
nations; the father of believers. But Christ was King 
of kings and Lord of all. In him all nations of the 
earth were blessed. He is the Head of the church. 
His union with believers is more intimate, supporting 
and endearing than was Abraham's. Moses was ap- 
pointed to be as God unto Pharaoh. He delivered a 
nation from bondage. He wrought miracles. He 
covered Egypt with plagues. He was admitted to 
the mount where God was; and when he returned, 
the skin of his face shone. He is a lively representa- 
tion of the Messiah. But the Messiah suffers no dim- 
inution of character by contrast with this illustrious 



176 Christ's divinity argued. 

man. Christ was with God not a few days only; but 
from the beginning he was with God. He came not for 
the deliverance of one nation only; but for the deliv- 
erance of all the nations of the earth, not from tem- 
poral calamities, but from spiritual bondage. When 
he wrought miracles, he wrought them not to plague 
the land; but to do good to the people; to confirm his 
authority; to display the mighty power of God; and 
he wrought them in his own name and by his own 
might. At the time of his transfiguration, splendor 
was not confined to his face; nor was his brightness 
reflected by beholding the glories of the Deity. But 
his divinity, as if impatient of confinement in a human 
body, burst through the vail, and covered his whole 
body with light. Not like Moses did he conceal his 
glories by wrapping them in a vail lest people should 
pay undue respect. But he suffered his disciples to 
gaze, admire, and pay him homage. Moses never 
communicated power to others to work miracles; for 
his power was from God, and he could not transfer it. 
But Christ commissioned apostles to work miracles in 
his name; and he commissioned them upon his own 
authority. When Moses died, the Lord buried him, 
and suffered no man to know the place of his sepulchre, 
lest people should go to his grave and pay divine hon- 
ors to that illustrious man. But such precaution was 
not used at the interment of the body of Jesus. What 
is the conclusion? There was no danger that people 
would pay too high honors to the Savior. 

Other patriarchs and prophets represented Jesus 
Christ. But they represented only some individual 
trait in his character. They were but obscure rep- 
resentations. If such and so many illustrious charac- 
ters were employed to prefigure the Messiah, very 
great must he be, who was thus represented. As 
God made a visible distinction between those miracles, 
which were wrought by his servant upon Egypt, and 
those, which the magicians did by their enchantments, 
so he has made a visible distinction between the 



Christ's divinity argued. 177 

Messiah and all those illustrious characters, which 
prefigured him. 

Christ suffers no diminution of character in contrast 
with the highest orders of created intelligences, of 
which we have knowledge. Angels are his minister- 
ing servants. At his birth an angel was sent to an- 
nounce the joyful event; and a multitude of the angelic 
host sang praise to God in the highest, on that impor- 
tant occasion. Angels afforded Christ their minister- 
ing aid while he suffered the hardships of life; and 
especially while he suffered agony in the garden. 
They will wait upon him in the clouds of heaven at 
the last day. When he came into the world, divine 
authority required that all the angels of God should 
worship him. To none of the angels did God ever 
say, sit thou at my right hand. But to the Son he 
said, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever." It is evident 
that Christ is a being of more exalted nature and 
character than the angels. To whom then shall he 
be likened; or with whom shall he be compared? 

He is far above all creatures. He is their Creator. 
By him all things consist. He is the Author, he is 
the Substance of our religion. He is the believer's 
hope. 

The representations, which the sacred Scriptures 
give of Jesus Christ are calculated to convince man- 
kind that he is a divine character. He is the leading 
subject; he is the most prominent character of our 
system of religion. The Scriptures attribute to him 
the qualities, the works, the names, the honors which 
they give to God. When people called him divine; 
when they worshipped him as if he were divine, he 
never charged them with error. He indulged, he 
encouraged the deception, if deception it was. Moses 
used caution to prevent a superstitious people from 
venerating him as a Deity. John the baptist, to pre- 
vent people from mistaking himself for him that 
should come, declared that he was not the Christ; 
that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of his 
23 



178 Christ's divinity argued. 

shoes. When the apostles, by signs and wonders 
excited the admiration of the people at Lystra; and 
they reputed them as gods, and would have offered 
sacrifice to them, they corrected the error, and forbade 
the idolatry. When the angel, whom Christ sent to 
testify unto the churches, had finished the work of 
his mission with John, he fell down to worship the 
angel; but the angel said, "See thou do it not; for I 
am thy fellow servant. — Worship God." When the 
patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the angel, 
excited the veneration of people, they were cautious 
to disclaim all pretensions to divine honors. They 
suffered not their idolatry. Christ excited the vener- 
ation of men more than they. Through belief of his 
divinity they rendered him divine honors. Had he 
been only a created being; and had he been a holy 
being; and had he been jealous for the honor of God's 
name, like them he would have refused their worship; 
he would have forbidden their impiety. But when 
worship was offered him he received it with compla- 
cency. 

If the Scriptures are true, there appears to be 
decisive evidence that Christ is divine; and they are 
calculated to convince mankind of this truth. They 
ascribe as much excellence, and as much honor to 
Christ as they ascribe to the Father. The Christian 
church has, from its first establishment, ascribed 
divinity and divine honors to the Son of God. If some, 
with the Scriptures in their hands, have attempted to 
rob Christ of divine glory; others, with the same 
Scriptures, have attempted to do the same to God the 
Father. These are exceptions, which prove the 
darkness of the understanding and the obduracy of 
the human heart. 

In every age of the world, people have manifested 
a strong propensity to idolatry. They were not less 
prone to this impiety when Christ was upon earth, 
and when his system of religion was committed to 
writing. Would God set his seal to a system of relig- 



Christ's divinity argued. 179 

ion, which attributed divine nature and divine prerog- 
atives to one of his creatures? Would he suffer his 
church to be thus imposed on from the beginning of 
the world to the present day, and to the end of time; 
and by his word encourage the error? If the Scrip- 
tures may be credited; if Christ was sincere and spoke 
the truth, there appears to be as high evidence, as 
language can afford, that Christ is divine. 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION, 



"There is none other name under heaven given among 
men, whereby we must be saved," Acts 4:12. The 
sacred scriptures abundantly testify that human nature, 
by the apostasy, lost its purity and dignity; lost divine 
approbation; contracted guilt, and incurred the dis- 
pleasure of heaven. The sacred scriptures testify 
that from this sinful, unhappy condition, it could not, 
by its own power and wisdom, extricate itself. With- 
out foreign aid it must for ever remain in a state of 
sin and wretchedness. The same sacred scriptures 
reveal a Savior; a personage, who came to seek and 
save that which was lost. He was early promised to 
the world; and he was revealed by the name Savior. 
Salvation was promised through him. God, by his 
prophet declared, saying, "Israel shall be saved in the 
Lord, with an everlasting salvation." By the same 
prophet he foretold the blessing of the Messiah to 
the world. "I will give thee for a light to the Gen- 
tiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end 
of the earth. My salvation is gone forth, the isles 
shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust. 
In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem 
shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith he 
shall be called, The Lord, our Righteousness." 

A short time before Christ was born, an angel 
appeared unto Joseph, and directed him to call the 
child, which was to be born of Mary, Jesus. This 
name was given him on account of its appropriate 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 181 

signification. He was to be a Savior; and the name 
Jesus, has that import. Christ said of himself, "The 
Son of man is come to save that which was lost." 
Zacharias, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
said, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath 
visited and redeemed his people; and hath raised up 
an horn of salvation for us." At the birth of Christ 
an angel declared the joyful event, saying, "Unto you 
is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which 
is Christ the Lord." The devout Simeon took the 
child Jesus in his arms. Under the influence of God's 
Spirit, and in rapture with the prospect of Christ's 
blessings, he said, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant 
depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes 
have seen thy salvation." Christ, speaking of the 
love of God said, "God sent not his Son into the world 
to condemn the world, but that the world through 
him might be saved." Christ repeatedly conveyed 
the idea that he was the Savior of the world; and the 
universal tenor of his works confirmed his word. 

The apostles abundantly inculcated the sentiment 
that Christ is the Savior of the world. "Through 
this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of 
sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
shalt be saved. Christ Jesus came into the world to 
save sinners. He is also able to save them to the utter- 
most, that come unto God by himi The Father 
hath sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." It 
is a prominent doctrine of the New Testament that 
Christ is the Savior of the world. 

Christ saves sinners from their sins. When he 
surveyed mankind after the apostasy, and by his all- 
seeing eye looked through every generation to the 
close of time, he perceived that all were corrupt; 
that all had gone out of the way; that there was none 
that did good, no not one. He perceived that they 
might be saved from their sins; and he undertook the 
work. He had authority to send the Holy Spirit into 
the world to repair human nature; to support and 



182 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 

comfort people in the way of obedience. This step 
was necessary, because, according to divine constitu- 
tion, no unclean thing was suffered to enter into the 
kingdom of heaven. Christ had authority to adopt 
and prosecute this method; for all authority in heaven 
and on earth was given to him. When he saw his 
disciples sorrowful because he was about to leave the 
world, he promised to send them the Comforter, who 
would reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, 
and of judgment; and who would guide them into all 
(ruth, and teach them all things. The scriptures 
attribute a change of heart, or the washing of regen- 
eration to the Holy Spirit. As Christ sends the Holy 
Spirit into the world to do this office, the same work, 
the work of sanctification is attributed to him. Paul, 
to the Corinthians, makes his salutation to those who 
are sanctified in Christ Jesus. He adds, "ye are 
sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus." By sancti- 
fying sinners by his Spirit, Christ saves sinners from 
their sins. Those, who are born of his Spirit are 
saved from the dominion of sin. They cease to relish 
it. They cease to practise it habitually. They are 
saved from the bondage of the great adversary. If 
sanctification be not complete in this life; if they, at 
times fall into transgression, yet they experience a 
great deliverance from sin and from the power of the 
great adversary; and they are brought into the liberty 
of the sons of God. 

Christ saves the human body from the dominion 
of death. In consequence of sin, a sentence of mor- 
tality was pronounced upon the human race. This 
sentence, with a few individual exceptions, and with 
the exception of those, who will be living on the earth 
at the day of the resurrection, has been, and will be 
carried into execution. The human family generally 
have been and will be under the empire of death. 
Christ has given assurance that death will, one day, 
be swallowed up in victory; that he will reanimate 
and reorganize the lifeless bodies of the human race, 
and render them immortal. 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OP SALVATION. 183 

Christ not only saves sinners from sin; their bodies 
from a continuation of death; but he saves their souls 
from destruction. He has obtained reprieve for the 
human race. He has magnified the divine law and 
made it honorable. He has proposed conditions, 
favorable conditions to the guilty race of man, on 
which he will forgive their sins, and present them to 
the Father justified in his sight. Had not Christ inter- 
posed in behalf of sinners; became a curse for them, 
they must have suffered the penalty of the law, and 
be for ever banished from the enjoyment of God, and 
suffer his indignation for ever. But Christ has pre- 
pared the way for the return of sinners to holiness 
and happiness. He offers gracious conditions on which 
he will restore them; and he affords aid to assist them 
to fulfil those conditions. He has given assurance 
that he will save from the second death all those, 
who repent of sin and put their trust in him. 

Christ saves sinners by his own sacrifice. He made 
his soul an offering for sin. By this sacrifice he sup- 
ported the honor of God's law; and the rights of God's 
throne while he procured remission of sin for penitent 
sinners. 

After Jesus Christ had paid a ransom for sinners, 
he was in a capacity to make intercession with the 
Father for those, who believed on his name. The 
Sacred Scriptures bear testimony that he is a Media- 
tor; makes intercession for believers; and that his 
intercession will be prevalent. "There is one God 
and one Mediator between God and men, the man 
Christ Jesus. He is the Mediator of a better cove- 
nant. He made intercession for the transgressors. 
Who also maketh intercession for us. We have an 
Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right- 
eous." God by covenant has assured his Son that he 
shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. A 
portion of the human race will listen to the calls of 
the Gospel; will yield to the influences of the Holy 
Spirit and embrace the Savior. For this portion of 



184 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 

the human race, Christ will intercede. The Father 
delighteth in his Son and he delighteth to grant his 
requests. None that cometh to the Father by him 
shall in any wise be cast out. 

The near relationship, which subsists between 
Christ and his subjects, argues that he will save them. 
He is the Ruler of his people. He is frequently 
styled, in the Scriptures, Governor and King. God, 
by the Psalmist, saith, "I have set my King upon my 
holy hill of Zion." The prophet Zechariah, in view 
of the approach of the Messiah, breaks out in this 
elevated strain, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; 
shout O daughter of Jerusalem, thy King cometh 
unto thee, he is just and having salvation.'''' Nathanael, 
that Israelite, in whom was no guile, addressed Christ 
in the most decisive language; "Thou art the Son of 
God; thou art the King of Israel." It was prophesied 
of the Messiah, that the government should be upon 
his shoulder. As Christ is King of his people, he will 
save them from all their enemies. It is the charac- 
teristic of a good ruler, as he has ability, to save his 
subjects from their foes; to deliver them from evils, 
and secure them from danger. Christ is a wise, 
powerful, and good Ruler. He will therefore save 
his own peculiar people. If he suffers them, at times, 
to be chastised by their enemies; he suffers it no far- 
ther than it serves as salutary discipline. He will 
finally lead them to victory and to salvation. 

Christ styles himself a shepherd, "the good Shep- 
herd." As it is the duty of a shepherd to feed his 
sheep and secure them from beasts of prey; so Christ 
supports his flock; secures them from their enemies, 
and finally saves them. Christ claims the relationship 
of bridegroom to his church. This figurative appel- 
lation conveys the idea of the most intimate union, and 
of the most endearing care and affection. A mother 
may forget her tender offspring, but Christ declares 
that he will not forget his church. Arguments need 
not be multiplied to prove that Jesus Christ is the 



CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 185 

Author of salvation. The Sacred Scriptures bear 
testimony to the truth of this doctrine; and if they be 
true, the doctrine of salvation by Christ is also true. 
Upon this ground mankind are, with propriety, re- 
quired to put their trust in him; to apply to him for 
every aid, and commit their highest concerns to his 
hands. 

The inference then is plain that Christ is not mere- 
ly a man. The Scriptures expressly declare, "Cursed 
be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh 
his arm." But, "Blessed is the man that trusteth in 
the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." It is not 
reasonable that a mere man could work out such a 
complete righteousness, that offers of pardon and sal- 
vation could be consistently made to the human race. 
No man liveth, or ever lived, and sinned not. Conse- 
quently no man can save himself. He can make no 
expiation for his own sins, excepting by suffering the 
threatened penalty. If he cannot save himself, it is 
presumable that he cannot save others. If a man 
were appointed to be the author of salvation, by 
making satisfaction for sin, by officiating as mediator 
between God and the human race, and forgiving their 
offences; it would greatly diminish the dignity of the 
divine character; it would greatly diminish the evil of 
sin; it would greatly diminish the price and the value 
of salvation; it would contract every part of the work 
of redemption. 

Similar objections lie against the hypothesis that a 
superangelic creature was the author of salvation. 
Whoever the Savior is, whatever his nature and his 
character are, the Sacred Scriptures attribute to him 
the highest excellences; the highest honors; the 
highest authority; and require the highest love to be 
exercised toward him. God has given us the Sacred 
Scriptures to be the object of our faith and the rule 
of our practice. Can it be supposed that God, who is 
jealous for the honor of his name; who is jealous for 
the rights of his throne, would appoint a creature, (of 
24 



186 CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 

however exalted nature,) to take his place; to receive 
his authority; to do his works; to receive the glory 
which is due only to himself and be the object of the 
highest love of the human race? Will God suffer a 
creature to be on equality with himself in the work of 
redemption, the noblest of all his works? Will he, 
who has manifested the strongest displeasure against 
idolatry, encourage, nay, require the human race to 
pay divine honors to one of his creatures? There is 
not such inconsistency; there is not such contradiction 
in the divine Mind. 

It is rational to suppose that the Author of salva- 
tion has a nature and character proportionate to the 
work. It appears that it would require as great 
power, as deep wisdom, as much goodness, to repair 
and restore a ruined world, as it required to create it. 
He alone, that required obedience to the divine law, 
has authority to forgive sin. He alone that formed 
the mechanism of the human mind can repair it. He 
alone that organized the human body and animated 
it with a rational soul, can reorganize and reunite it 
with its kindred spirit. He alone that hath all author- 
ity in heaven and in earth, can distribute reward and 
punishment at the day of judgment. He that doth 
these things is Christ; and consequently Christ is 
divine. 



ON THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS 
CHRIST. 



To form correct ideas of the nature and character of 
Jesus Christ, it is important to notice his offices and 
his duties arising from them. It is not from one attri- 
bute, one name, one office, or one work, we can learn 
the qualities of his nature. But from an examination 
of them all, we have a more extensive view of the 
subject; and shall more probably be unbiassed in our 
inquiries, and be better qualified to discover the truth. 
When we examine a large structure, we notice its 
parts; their connexion; and then the general design 
and appearance of the whole. When we contemplate 
on Jesus Christ, the subject appears so vast, that we 
need to examine it, as it were, by parts, or in different 
points of view. When we have made these distinct 
investigations, we can bring them together and see 
what is the amount of the whole. It will cast some 
light on this subject to examine the mediatorial office 
and work of Jesus Christ. 

It appears that the Father has holden intercourse 
with mankind since the apostasy, through a mediator. 
He, who conversed with our first parents in Eden 
after their transgression, was probably the Word. 
The Angel, who appeared to the patriarchs and made 
important communications of the divine will; who led 
Israel out of Egypt, conducted them through the Red 
Sea, and directed them in the wilderness; who appear- 
ed many other times, and spoke with divine authority 



188 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

and power, exhibited traits of character, which iden- 
tify him with the Lord Jesus. He was the Angel of 
the covenant. So is Christ. He was the Mediator 
between God and mankind after the covenant of 
mercy began to be revealed. Christ is the Mediator 
of the new covenant. He was tempted in the wilder- 
ness. So was Christ. It was implicitly declared, 
that the Angel could forgive sin. When Christ was 
upon earth, he proved that he had authority to forgive 
sins. It is admitted by those, who grant that Christ 
is a Savior, that the saints, during the first four thou- 
sand years of the world, were saved in view of the 
merits, and through the mediation of Christ. 

The Mediator between God and men, the apostle 
calls "the man Christ Jesus." From this and similar 
expressions in the Scriptures, it has been inferred, 
that Christ was merely a man. This inference does 
not appear to be conclusive. The Angel, who wrestled 
with Jacob, was called a man. Angels, who appeared 
at various times on special occasions, were called men. 
God himself is called a man, "a man of war." But 
this mode of expression does not prove that they were 
really men. The Angel, who wrestled with Jacob, 
and frequently appeared to the patriarchs, and those 
ministering angels, who were occasionally sent into 
the world on important business, were called men, 
because they assumed a human appearance. God is 
figuratively called a man of war, because he has 
power to overcome, and actually does overcome his 
enemies. But for other reasons, was Christ called a 
man. He really was a man. He was made flesh. 
He was made of a woman. He was tempted in all 
points like as we are. Because he was a man, it does 
not follow that he was simply a man. If the appear- 
ances of men had a different nature connected with 
them, there appears to be no absurdity, in admitting 
that a real man might have a different nature con- 
nected with him. If Christ consist of human and 
divine nature, it is not surprising that he should some- 



THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 189 

times be called man, and sometimes God. He is called 
one or the other in the Scriptures, according to the 
subject of discourse. If the subject be his humanity, 
he is called man, or the Son of man. If the subject 
be his divinity, he is called God, or Son of God, or by 
some name, or in some way expressive of his divine 
nature. The apostle Paul, in his address to the rulers 
of the synagogue at a certain time, says, "Be it known 
unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through 
this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." 
He had just before spoken of his crucifixion and res- 
urrection. As he had been speaking of him in respect 
to his human nature, it was proper and natural to 
continue to speak of him in respect to the same nature, 
till he had closed this subject of his discourse. 
Besides, it was through the sufferings of Christ that 
the forgiveness of sin is made possible. In another 
place, the same apostle says, "He has appointed a 
day, in the which he will judge the world in right- 
eousness by that man, whom he hath ordained." In 
connexion with this, he spoke of his human nature; of 
the resurrection of his body. It was natural therefore 
to speak of him in this connexion by the name, or in 
the character of a man. Again he says, "For since 
by man came death, by man also came the resurrection 
of the dead." The same observations apply to this 
text. The apostle had been speaking of the resur- 
rection of Christ's body, and was contrasting him with 
Adam. It was correct, therefore, to continue to speak 
of him, in that connexion, as a man. When he is 
exhibited in connexion with his work of creation, he 
is called God. When it is said he will raise the dead, 
he is called the Son of God. When he is contrasted 
with angels, and his vast superiority is set forth, he 
was addressed by the divine title, O God; a title sig- 
nificant of the nature, in which he had just been rep- 
resented; and in which he was so much superior to 
the angels. If Christ be both human and divine, 
these observations shew the propriety of exhibiting 



190 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

him sometimes in one nature and sometimes in the 
other. The connexion between the son of man and 
the Son of God, is so intimate that the name and prop- 
erties of one are sometimes applied to the other. 
"The second man is the Lord from heaven." Here 
the humanity of Christ is called the Lord from heaven. 
"Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased 
with his own blood." In this text, human blood is 
called the blood of God. "Which none of the princes 
of this world know, for had they known it, they 
would not have crucified the Lord of glory ," 1 Cor. 
2:8. In this text the tortures of the cross are applied 
to the Lord of glory, the divine nature of Jesus Christ 
By this phraseology we are not to understand that 
the divinity of Christ suffered pain; but we are to 
understand the intimate connexion between his two 
natures. This kind of phraseology is not uncommon. 
We say, a man dies, when we only mean that his body 
suffers dissolution. We say, man will live for ever, 
when we only mean that his soul will never see death. 
Jesus Christ, in his mediatorial office on earth, 
suffered deep humiliation of his divine nature, and 
extreme torture of his humanity. The Son of God 
not only took upon him human nature, but he took it 
in the form of a servant. He made himself of no 
reputation. He suffered the scorn and reproach of 
the wicked. The gracious miracles, which he wrought 
by his own divine power, were attributed to the oper- 
ation of the evil spirit. The prayer, which he made 
to the Father to glorify him, with that glory which 
he had with him before the world was, implies that 
he was divested of his glory for a season, and that he 
was in a state of humiliation. So intimate was the 
union of his two natures, that all the ignominy which 
was directed against his human nature, extended to 
his divinity. He endured extreme suffering in his 
human nature. He was grieved for the hardness of 
the human heart. He wept over Jerusalem, when 
he beheld her approaching destruction. He wa? 



THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 191 

touched with a feeling of our infirmities. He suffered 
the temptations of the great adversary, and the per- 
secutions of those, whom he came to save. In the 
near approach of his crucifixion, when the tortures of 
the cross presented themselves to his mind, he almost 
recoiled at the prospect. He sweat, as it were, great 
drops of blood, and prayed that if it were possible 
the cup of suffering might pass from him. When he 
was suspended upon the fatal wood, and the Father 
withdrew his consoling presence, he exclaimed in the 
anguish of his soul, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?" 

Jesus Christ, by his humiliation and suffering, became 
fully qualified for the work of his mediatorial office. 
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by 
the things which he suffered. And being made per- 
fect, he became the Author of eternal salvation unto 
all them that obey him. It became him, for whom 
are all things, and by whom are all things, in bring- 
ing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain 
of their salvation perfect through suffering," He- 
brews 5:8, 9; and 2:10. By these declarations 
of the apostle we are not to understand that there 
was any imperfection in his nature, which was remov- 
ed by his suffering; or that he was more perfect in 
his nature after, than he was before, his humiliation. 
But the things which he suffered, were a necessary 
qualification for his mediatorial office. The act of 
consecration was necessary under the law, to perfect 
men for the priest's office. But this act added noth- 
ing to their natural qualifications. So the sufferings 
of Christ were a necessary preparation for his medi- 
atorial office; but made no addition to the perfection 
of his nature. Was there no Mediator then before 
the humiliation and sufferings of Jesus Christ? His 
mediation was then efficacious for man, and acceptable 
to the Father, by virtue and in view of his abasement, 
and the shedding of his blood, which were to take 
place. Saints, before the incarnation of the Son of 



192 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

God, were saved by faith in a Savior to come; and the 
Son of God was an effectual Savior, during that period, 
by virtue of that sacrifice which he was to make. 

The union of divine and human nature, the suffer- 
ings of the one, and the humiliation of the other, 
appear to be revealed truths; and they appear to be 
necessary qualifications for a Mediator between God 
and man. Were the Mediator only divine, one party 
only would be literally represented. He could not 
be touched with the feeling of human infirmities. He 
could not have a personal sympathy for suffering 
humanity. Nor could he feel what allowance ought 
to be made for the weakness of human nature. He 
could not suffer the penalty of the law for sin; and by 
suffering magnify and honor it. Condescension and 
concession would appear to be only on the part of 
Deity. On the other hand, if the Mediator were 
only of a human or created nature, one party only 
would be literally represented. It is not probable 
he would have an adequate knowledge of all the 
rights and prerogatives of divine authority; at least, he 
could not have a. feeling sense of them. He could do 
no more than his own personal duty. He could have 
no surplus of merit, which he could transfer to the 
destitute. He could make no expiation for sin; and 
without expiation, every instance of pardon would 
dishonor the divine law, and weaken divine authority. 
But by the union of the Son of God with the Son of 
man, both these difficulties are removed. Both par- 
ties are literally represented. Satisfaction can be 
made to the violated law of God; and the Father can 
be just while he justifies penitent sinners. In this 
method, "Mercy and truth are met together; right- 
eousness and peace have kissed each other," Ps. 85:10. 
If a whole nation had revolted from their legal sove- 
reign, what individual would be suitable to mediate 
between the parties to produce reconciliation? Would 
the King's son alone be suitable for the undertaking? 
However wise and virtuous, and benevolent he might 
be, would he alone probably accomplish the object? 



THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 



193 



Would not rebels view him with a jealous eye? Would 
an individual of the nation, one, who had not fallen 
into the same transgression, be suitable to mediate 
between the parties? However wise and virtuous he 
might be in his private capacity, would he have an 
adequate knowledge of the rights of his sovereign; 
and would he feel a suitable interest in the support 
and honor of his throne? Would he have adequate 
weight of character, either in the sight of his nation 
or of his sovereign, to produce reconciliation between 
them? Let him unite with the King's Son, in the work 
of mediation; and the plan appears more reasonable, 
and more probable of success. The application, in 
some important respects, cannot be misunderstood. 

The man Christ Jesus, after his resurrection, re- 
ceived great honor and authority. He had endured 
extreme ignominy and suffering. But for the joy that 
was set before him, he endured the cross, despised the 
shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of 
God. Like other men, he had human feelings, and 
was actuated by a hope of reward. Many passages 
of sacred scripture represent the honor, or exaltation, 
which he received after his resurrection; and some 
of them represent it to be a consequence, or reward 
of his sufferings. "After the Lord had spoken unto 
them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the 
right hand of God," Mark 16:19. "Which he wrought 
in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set 
him at his own right hand in the heavenly places; far 
above all 'principality and power, and might, and domin- 
ion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, 
but also in that which is to come,'' 1 Eph. 1:20, 21. 
"When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down 
on the right hand of the Majesty on high," Heb. 1:3. 
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a 
Prince and a Savior," Acts 5:31. "He humbled him- 
self, and became obedient unto death, even the death 
of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted 
him, and given him a name, which is above every name; 
25 



194 THE MEDIATORIAL* OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under 
the earth; and that every tongue should confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
Phil. 2:8 — 11. "But we see Jesus, who was made a 
little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, 
crowned with glory and honor," Heb. 2:9. In all these 
texts, it will be seen by examination, that the man 
Christ Jesus was exalted and honored. Divinity is in- 
capable of absolute exaltation. The Son of God, who, 
for a time, divested himself of the form of God, might 
be said to be comparatively exalted, when he was re- 
stored to that glory, which he had with the Father, 
before the world was. But the foregoing texts evi- 
dently relate to the humanity of Christ. 

After Jesus was risen from the dead, he said to his 
disciples, "All power is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth," Matt. 28:18. Before his crucifixion, when 
he was speaking of his power and authority, he said, 
"The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall 
hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear 
shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so 
hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and 
hath given him authority to execute judgment also, be- 
cause he is the Son of man," John 5:25,26,27. "When 
the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy 
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of 
his glory; and before him shall be gathered all na- 
tions," &c. Matt. 25:31,32. The apostle Paul, speak- 
ing of the resurrection and day of judgment, says, 
"He hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the 
world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath 
ordained," Acts 17:31. From these and several 
other texts, it is evident that the resurrection of the 
dead, and the final judgment, are attributed sometimes 
to the Son of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ; and 
sometimes to the Son of man. When the subject of 
discourse is the man Christ Jesus, then these great 
works are ascribed to him as man, or Son of man. 



THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 195 

When Christ would exhibit himself on an equality 
with the Father, in respect to the greatness of his 
works and the honor to be given him, he calls himself 
the Son of God. Speaking of the resurrection, he 
says, "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; 
and they that hear shall live." The cause he assigns, 
for which he is vested with authority to judge the 
world, is, that he is the Son of man. When the Son of 
God is called the Son of man, the expression is parallel 
with this text, "The Word was made flesh." By 
this phraseology, it is not to be understood that the 
Word, or Son of God, changed his nature and became 
only a man. But it is to be understood that he came 
into a peculiarly intimate union with a man. "Foras- 
much then as the children are partakers of flesh and 
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same," 
Heb. 2:14. His taking flesh and blood implies that he, 
who took, and that, which was taken, were not iden- 
tically the same. 

Since the resurrection and ascension of the body of 
Jesus, the Son of man, in union with the Son of God, is 
seated on the throne, at the right hand of the Father. 
In this situation the martyr Stephen saw him just be- 
fore his execution, when he was filled with the Holy 
Ghost and looked up to heaven. In this state of 
exaltation, the Son of man participates with the Son of 
God, the government of the mediatorial kingdom. At 
the last day, the man Christ Jesus in union and in joint 
operation with the divine Son, will raise the dead and 
judge the world. At this time, and in this union and 
joint operation with the Son of God, he will put down, 
or subdue, all rule and all authority and power, which 
were opposed to his mediatorial government. He 
will put all enemies under his feet. He will destroy 
death and him that had the power of death, that is, 
the devil. Then will the first Gospel prediction be 
fulfilled, "The Seed of the woman shall bruise the 
serpent's head." This work will he perform, and this 
exaltation will he receive as a reward of his sufferings. 



196 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 

This is a great work, and a great honor. Of this 
work and of this honor, the man Christ Jesus par- 
ticipates with the Son of God. 

Now cometh the end of this economy. The media- 
torial kingdom is completed. Christ delivers it up to 
God, even the Father. The mediatorial office and 
work terminate. A new dispensation commences. 
The Son himself, i. e. the Son of man, the man Christ 
Jesus, no longer exercises authority in that depart- 
ment, which has now ceased; but becomes subjected 
to him, who gave him this authority; and God, 
(Aleim) without the distinctions of Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, and without different departments of ad- 
ministration, which were manifested during the work 
of redemption, will be all in all. He will hold the 
reins of government, without any medium, as he did 
before the work of redemption commenced. 

That the subjection of the Son, at the close of the 
mediatorial economy, signifies the subjection of the 
Son of man, or the man Christ Jesus, appears evident 
from the design and connexion of the apostle's dis- 
course. He had been speaking of the death, burial, 
and resurrection of Christ. From his resurrection he 
argued the resurrection of the dead. "For since by 
man came death, by man also came the resurrection 
of the dead," 1 Cor. 15:21. Without the least in- 
timation of change of the subject, he speaks of the 
subjection of the Son. It is a fair inference then, 
that this Son is the Son of man. 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 



"Behold I send an Angel before thee," Exodus 23:20. 
Many extraordinary appearances of an angel, or of 
the Angel of the Lord, are recorded in the Old Testa- 
ment. It is important to know who this Angel was. 
Satisfactory information, on this subject, may be 
found in the names, which were given him, in what he 
said of himself; in what he did; and in the respect 
which was paid to him. The name angel, signifies 
messenger, or one sent. It designates not the nature, 
but the office, of the agent. 

The Angel of the Lord appeared unto Hagar, after 
she had fled from her mistress; and commanded her 
to return and be subject to her authority. He prom- 
ised her saying: "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, 
that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And she 
called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou 
God seest me," Gen. 16:10, 13. In this account of 
the Angel's appearance, it is noticable that he prom- 
ised to do a work, which divine power alone could do; 
and he promised it in a style peculiar to God. "I will 
multiply thy seed exceedingly." He spoke, to appear- 
ance, upon his own authority; and it appears that 
Hagar understood him so; for "she called the name 
of the Lord, (HIIT) that spake unto her, Thou 
God seest me." 

After Hagar and her son were cast out from the 
house of Abraham; and she apprehended that her 
son would die for want of sustenance, "she lifted up 



198 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 

her voice and wept; and God heard the voice of the 
lad; and the Angel of God called to Hagar out of 
heaven, and said unto her, what aileth thee, Hagar? 
fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad 
where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in 
thine hand; for I will make him a great nation; and 
God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water," 
Gen. 21:16 — 19. In this history of the bond woman 
and her son, God, and the Angel of God, are repre- 
sented, having the same knowledge, the same care, 
and the same authority over them. God heard the 
voice of the child. The Angel of God called to Hagar. 
God opened her eyes. The Angel of God promised 
to make the lad a great nation. There appears to 
be a certain distinction here made, between God, and 
the Angel of God; but in this history the latter does 
not appear inferior in the qualities of his nature to 
the former. 

God tried Abraham; and commanded him to take 
his son Isaac and offer him for a burnt offering. Abra- 
ham obeyed. He took his son; went to the place, 
which God had told him of; built an altar; laid on 
the wood; bound his son; laid him upon the wood, 
and took the knife to slay him. "And the Angel of 
the Lord called to him out of heaven and said, Abra- 
ham, Abraham! and he said, here am 1. And he said, 
Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do any thing 
unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, see- 
ing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from 
me. And Abraham called the name of that place 
Jehovah-jireh," i. e. the Lord will see or provide. 
"And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out 
of heaven the second time, and said, by myself have 
I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done 
this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
son; that in blessing I will bless thee; and in multi- 
plying, I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven," 
Gen. 21:11, 12, 14—17. 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 199 

In the first of these two appearances of the Angel 
of the Lord, he speaks as God himself. He addressed 
Abraham in the same manner, and, to appearance, 
with the same authority, with which God had before 
addressed him. The offering of Isaac was to be made to 
God. But mark the words of the Angel. "For now I 
know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with- 
held thy son, thine only son from me," Gen. 22:12. The 
conclusion is, that it was the same thing to offer his 
son to God, or to the Angel of the Lord. The second 
time the Angel called to Abraham, he speaks not his 
own words; but addresses him in the words of the 
Lord. But these words are precisely the same in 
effect, which the Angel had before spoken. The 
Angel said to Abraham, "seeing thou hast not with- 
held thy son, thine only son." The Lord said by the 
Angel, "because thou - hast done this thing, and hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son." The Angel 
passed his word respecting Ishmael, "I will make 
him a great nation." The Lord passed his word with 
an oath to Abraham, by the mouth of the Angel, "I 
will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven." While 
a certain distinction is made between the Angel of the 
Lord, and the Lord himself, there is such a union 
manifested, that the Angel declares, upon his own 
authority, that a certain important purpose shall be 
accomplished. He then communicates the declara- 
tion of the Lord, to the same or similar effect. The 
offering of Isaac to God, according to his command, 
was not withholding him from the Angel; and it was 
also not withholding him from the Lord. It is hard 
to conceive that there should be such union, such 
intimacy, such equality between the Creator and a 
creature. 

When Jacob was on his way from Laban to his own 
country, he was left alone; "and there wrestled a 
man with him until the breaking of the day." This 
man changed his name, blessed him, and told him that 
he had power with God and with man, and that he 



200 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 

had prevailed. "And Jacob called the name of the 
place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face," Gen. 
32:30. The prophet Hosea tells us who this man 
was, with whom Jacob wrestled. Speaking of Jacob 
he says, "By his strength he had power with God; 
yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he 
wept and made supplication unto him; he found him 
in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord 
God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial," Hosea 12:3 
— 5. The prophet testifies that the man, with whom 
Jacob wrestled was the Angel. He was probably 
called a man, because he assumed the appearance of 
a man. The prophet goes on and says, that Jacob 
found him, i. e. the Angel, in Bethel. We find that 
he, whom the patriarch found in Bethel, was the 
Lord, who said, "I am the Lord God of Abraham thy 
father, and the God of Isaac. — And Jacob awaked 
out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in 
this place and I knew it not," Gen. 28:13, 16. The 
prophet calls this Angel "the Lord God of hosts; the 
Lord is his memorial." It has been objected, that 
"when the scripture informs that it was the Angel of 
the Lord, who said, I am the God of Abraham," &c. the 
account is equally plain to the understandings of men, 
that he spake not his own words, or in reference to 
himself, but the words of Jehovah, or in the name of 
God.* If this objection were valid against what the 
Angel said of himself, it would not lie against what 
the prophet said of him. If a created angel could 
personate his Creator, by what figure of speech, by 
what license, could the prophet call him the Lord 
God of hosts; and say that "the Lord (i. e. Jehovah) 
is his memorial?" 

When Moses kept the flock of his father-in-law at 
Horeb, "The Angel of the Lord appeared unto him 
in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he 
looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire; and 

* Sherman. 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 201 

the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will 
now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush 
is not burned. And when the Lord saw that he turned 
aside to see, God called to hiin out of the midst of the 
bush, and said, Moses, Moses, and he said, Here am I. 
And he said, draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes 
from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest 
is holy ground. Moreover, he said, I am the God of 
thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for 
he was afraid to look upon God" Ex. 3:2 — 6. During 
the interview between Moses and him who was in 
the bush, the Lord said unto him, "I will send thee 
unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my peo- 
ple, the children of Israel, out of Egypt," ver. 10. Moses 
then inquired of God, by what name he should call 
him, when he should go with his message to the chil- 
dren of Israel. "And God said unto Moses f / am that 
1 am; and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the chil- 
dren of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," ver. 14. 

In this history we find that the Angel of the Lord 
appeared unto Moses. There is no mention that any 
other appeared to hjm in the bush. He that was in 
the bush called unto him; and we are informed by the 
inspired historian, that it was God, who called to him. 
It is a natural conclusion, therefore, that this Angel- 
was the God who sp&ke, who called himself the God 
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who called himself 
I AM, a name implying self-existence. 

Stephen, in his answer to the council, before whom 
he was accused, gave a brief history from the time of 
Abraham to the time of Solomon. In this epitome 
he mentions the extraordinary appearance of the 
burning bush. Speaking of Moses, he says, "The 
same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by 
the hand of the Angel, which appeared to him in the 
bush." The immediate agent who sent Moses, is, 
therefore, the Angel. In the history which Moses 
gives, we find but one agent, i. e. the immediate agent, 
26 



202 CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 

introduced, the Angel of the Lord. In the course of 
the history, we find, that, without any change of the 
subject, the Lord saw that Moses turned aside to see; 
God called unto him out of the midst of the bush; he 
said, I am the God of thy father; I will send thee to 
Pharaoh; / am that I am. The subject, and the only 
subject to which all these names refer, is the Angel of 
the Lord, ver. 2. Consequently, the names, Lord, God, 
and I AM, are applied to him. But if he were merely 
a created angel, and said and did nothing on this occa- 
sion, he is introduced to great disadvantage; and his 
appearance does not seem to answer any important 
purpose. But the fact is, he did send Moses to deliver 
the children of Israel; and we have divine testimony 
that God sent him. 

After the Israelites had departed from Egypt, God 
led the people through the way of the wilderness of 
the Red Sea. "And the Lord went before them by 
day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way, and 
by night in a pillar of fire to give them light," Ex. 
13:21. When the Israelites had travelled as far as 
the Red Sea, and the Egyptians pressed hard upon 
them, it is recorded that, "The Angel of God, which 
went before the camp of Israel, removed and went 
behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from 
before their face, and stood behind them," Ex. 14:19. 
By a comparison of these two representations we find 
that he, who went before the children of Israel in a 
pillar of cloud to the Red Sea, was called the Lord. 
(HliT) But on the shore of the Red Sea, he that 
was in the cloud changed his position, and went from 
before the camp of Israel, and stood behind them; 
and the cloud moved in like manner. He is here 
called the Angel of God. It is evident that he, who 
went before them, is he, who removed and went be- 
hind them. It follows, of course, that the Angel of 
God is the Lord himself. 

Jehovah promised Moses that his presence (or his 
face) should go with him. We find that the divine 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 203 

presence in the cloud, did accompany him and the 
people, during their journeyings in the wilderness. 
But we learn by Stephen, that it was the Angel, that 
was with Moses in the church in the wilderness. It 
follows, of course, that the presence of the Angel was 
the presence of Jehovah. 

God, in his preface to the decalogue, addresses his 
servant Moses thus, "I am the Lord thy God, which 
have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of 
the house of bondage." He then proceeds to give 
him the law. But who was it that brought Moses 
out of Egypt? It was the Angel, who appeared to 
him in the bush, who styled himself I AM; and sent 
him to Pharaoh, to let Israel go; it was the Angel, 
who went before him in a pillar of cloud, to the bor- 
ders of the Red Sea; and went behind him through 
the deep, to protect him from the Egyptian host; it 
was the Angel, who was with him in the wilderness, 
who protected, guided, and supported him. This 
Angel was called Jehovah; and I AM was his memo- 
rial. Stephen, speaking of Moses, testifies to the 
same eifect. "This is he that was in the church in 
the wilderness, with the Jlngel, which spake to him in 
the mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received 
the lively oracles to give unto us," Acts 7:38. From 
this testimony it appears that the Angel, who was 
with Moses in the wilderness, spake the law to him; 
and. it has been shewn that that Angel was the Lord 
Jehovah. 

But the same Stephen testifies thus, "Who have 
received the law by the disposition of Angels," Acts 
7:53. The apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians 
concerning the law, says, "It was ordained by angels 
in the hand of a mediator," Gal. 3:19. To the 
Hebrews he says, "if the word spoken by angels was 
steadfast," &c. From these declarations, it has been 
inferred that angels gave the law from Sinai. Enough 
has been said to shew that he, who led Israel out of 
Egypt, guided them in a pillar of cloud, and appeared 



204 CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 

in the bush, gave the law from mount Sinai; and thai 
the Angel, who performed this was not a created 
angel, but was Jehovah. Moses states expressly, that 
Jehovah descended upon the mount in fire; that 
Jehovah conversed with him; that God spake all 
these words, viz. the words of the law. It is neces- 
sary therefore to reconcile the account, which Moses 
gives of the publication of the law, with the account 
which Stephen and the apostle Paul give of it. The 
first states that God spake all the words of the law; 
the latter states that it was received by the disposition 
of angels; that it was ordained and spoken by angels. 

There can be no doubt that God was the Author 
and prime Communicator of the law. That he em- 
ployed angels on mount Sinai on the important occa- 
sion of promulgating the law, is abundantly evident. 
Moses, before his death, blessed the twelve tribes of 
Israel. In the introduction of his blessing, he says, 
"The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir 
unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he 
came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand 
went a fiery law for them," Deut. 33:2. The Psalm- 
ist, describing the majesty of God, saith, "Sinai itself 
was moved at the presence of God, the God of Isra- 
el," Ps. 68:8. "The Lord gave the word; great was 
the company of them that published it," ver. 11. 
"The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even 
thousands of angels; the Lord is among them as in 
Sinai, in the holy place," ver. 17. From a view of these 
texts, and from a general view of the subject, it ap- 
pears that that uncreated Angel, who spake with 
Moses in mount Sinai, and was repeatedly called Jeho- 
vah, was attended with a host of angels on Sinai; and 
that he employed them as subordinate agents in pro- 
mulgating the law. But there is no evidence that 
they personated Jehovah, saying, I am the Lord God. 

The Lord, to encourage Moses on his way to the 
land of promise, says, "Behold I send an Angel before 
thee to keep thee in the way, and to briDg thee into 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 20& 

the place, which I have prepared. Beware of him, 
and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not 
pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him," 
Ex. 23:20, 21. In this description of the Angel, there 
are characteristic marks of divinity. It was required 
to obey his commands, and not to excite his anger; and 
the reason assigned is, "he will not pardon your trans- 
gressions." We are ready to adopt the language of 
the Jewish doctors of the law, and inquire, "Who can 
forgive sins but God only?" Forgiveness of sin is the 
prerogative of him, against whom it is committed. 
God says of the Angel, whom he sent, "my name is in 
him." The Angel is called by his name. He is called 
Lord, God, Jehovah, I AM. The name of a thing is 
frequently used as synonymous with the thing itself. 
The name of God is often used for God. When Christ 
prays, "Father, glorify thy name," his request is, that 
the Father would glorify himself. In many other 
places in the scriptures the word name, is used in the 
same manner. From this it is inferred, if God's name 
was in the Angel, God himself was in him. This 
phraseology, while it conveys an idea of a distinction 
between God and the Angel, also conveys an idea of 
a most intimate union; a union, which authorizes the 
same names to be applied; and the same operations 
to be attributed to each. The original word, ren- 
dered, in him, is of greater force than the translation, 
and expresses the inmost, or most intimate part of 
any thing; the inner or inmost part of man, his mind, 
heart, or inmost thought." Park. Lex. No word, per- 
haps, could express a more intimate union between 
God and the Angel, than this. 

This Angel is called "the Angel of his (i. e. God's) 
presence." He saved Israel. "In his love and in 
his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and 
carried them all the days of old," Isaiah 63:9. The 
name, Angel of his presence, or as it may be accu- 
rately translated, Angel of his face, imports that he 
manifested the presence of God; that where he was. 



206 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 

there was the face of God. That it was God, who 
saved and redeemed Israel, is not doubted. But this 
salvation is attributed to the Angel; and there is 
no intimation given that he did not do it by his own 
power. 

He is called the messenger, i. e. Angel of the cove- 
nant. This name imports that he communicated the 
covenant; or that he was a contracting party in the 
covenant; or that he was the leading subject of it. 
Either of these significations implies that he is the 
Lord. Besides, he is called the Lord in the same 
text, in which he is called the Angel of the covenant. 
See Mai. 3:1. 

Three men called on Abraham, in the plains of 
Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the 
day. They were travelling toward Sodom. Abraham 
respectfully addressed them; and courteously invited 
them to stop and take refreshment. In the course 
of their conversation with this pious man, one appears 
to be much more eminent than the others. He not 
only takes the lead in conversation, but he appears to 
speak with independent authority. When he speaks 
to Abraham, the sacred historian states that it is the 
Lord, (JT)iT) who speaks to him; and this he does 
repeatedly. At length "the men turned their faces 
from thence and went toward Sodom; but Abraham 
stood yet before the Lord." It appears evident that 
one of those three men, who appeared to Abraham, 
was the Lord, who conversed with him. They were 
called men, because they were in the appearance of 
men. While they were conversing with the patri- 
arch, without intimation of a new speaker, one in the 
character of Lord, i. e. Jehovah, addressed him. This 
one remained with Abraham, while the others went 
their way. It is evident, or at least, it is in the high- 
est degree probable, that he, who remained, was one 
of the three. Because, at even, two angels, and two 
only, are named, went into Sodom to destroy the 
place. 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 207 

Divine honors were paid to the Angel of the Lord. 
Jacob, a short time before his death, commanded that 
the sons of Joseph should be brought unto him, that 
he might bless them. When their father presented 
them before him, "he blessed Joseph and said, God, 
before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac did 
walk, the God, which fed me all my life long unto this 
day, the Angel, which redeemed me from all evil, 
bless the lads." In this passage there is a supplica- 
tion to the Angel, as well as to God; and as the verb, 
bless, (in the original) is in the singular number, he 
made no distinction between them, or rather he ad- 
dressed them as one, or distributively. Of course, 
prayer was addressed to the Angel; and it was ad- 
dressed for a blessing, not verbal, but real, which 
divine power only could bestow. 

"And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at 
the tabernacle door; and all the people rose up and 
worshipped, every man in his tent door," Ex. 33:10. 
It cannot be supposed that they paid homage to the 
pillar of cloud; but to him, that was in it. The scrip- 
tures are express, that it was the Angel, who was in 
the cloud, and guided Israel. It appears therefore, 
that they worshipped the Angel. 

"And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho? 
that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, 
there stood a man over against him, with his sword 
drawn in his hand, and Joshua went unto him, and said 
unto him, art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he 
said, nay; but as Captain of the host of the Lord, am 
I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, 
and did worship; and said unto him, what saith my 
Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the Lord's 
host said unto Joshua, loose thy shoe from off thy 
foot; for the place whereon thoustandest is holy; and 
Joshua did so," Joshua 5:13,14,15. This man, who 
appeared to Joshua, was undoubtedly the same, that 
appeared to Jacob and wrestled with him. But after- 



208 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 

ward Jacob said he had seen God face to face. This 
man is called Captain of the Lord's host. The Isra- 
elites were called the host, or the armies of the living 
God. The Captain, who led this host was the Angel 
who went with them in the pillar of cloud. If Joshua's 
falling on his face to the earth and worshipping, do 
not prove that he gave him divine reverence, the 
command to loose his shoe from off his foot, because 
the place where he stood was holy> implies h. When 
God called to Moses out of the bush, he commanded 
him to put off his shoes from his feet, because he stood 
on holy ground. This was commanded as an expres- 
sion of respect to the divine Majesty. It is presum- 
able that no creature would claim this homage, which 
God claimed for himself. (Hoc exemplo sacerdotes 
Judaici calceas exuunt in templo ministrantes. Pool 
in loco.) 

In the history of Gideon we find that the Angel of 
the Lord appeared to him. In the course of the his- 
tory he is called the Lord. Gideon, unconscious who 
he was, prepared a present, and offered it to him. 
The Angel, not needing the sustenance of mortals, 
appropriated it as a burnt offering. Thus Gideon 
unwittingly sacrificed unto him; or rather the Angel 
caused him to make this sacrifice unto himself. 

From what has been said respecting the Angel, 
whose appearances are recorded in the Old Testament, 
it appears that he was not a created angel, but that 
he was divine. But it is objected that it is absurd "to 
suppose that a certain being, may send a messenger on 
an errand to transact a particular business, and yet be 
that very messenger, who is sent;" or that God and 
the Angel of God are the same. However great is 
this absurdity, we are not answerable for it; for we 
neither invented, embraced, nor shall we attempt to 
defend it. But when we find in the inspired writings, 
that the Angel of God assumes the highest of divine 
titles, that he performs divine works, and that divine 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 209 

honors are given to him, we infer that there is a 
ground of distinction in the divine nature, on which a 
reciprocal relationship subsists; covenant engagements 
are ratified; different offices are sustained; and differ- 
ent works are performed. This distinction was per- 
ceived by the ancient Jews; but it was more clearly 
seen under the Gospel. 

"Philo makes all the appearances, which we meet 
with in the books of Moses, to belong to the Word; 
and the latter Cabalists, since Christ's time, not only 
do the same, but deny that the Father ever appeared, 
saying, it was the Aoyoa only that manifested himself 
to their fathers, whose proper name is Elohim. He 
(Philo) expressly affirms of the Angel, that delivered 
Jacob from all evil, that he was the Aoyoe. And so 
does Onkelos in his Chaldee paraphrase, translating 
the words of Jacob, simply as they lie in the text, with- 
out any addition." The Jews after Christ's time 
retained the same sentiment. (See Allix' Judgment 
of the An.-ient Jewish Church.) When Abraham 
received the promise that his seed should be as the 
stars of heaven, it was the word of the Lord, that 
came unto him, and made him this promise, Gen. 15. 
As the promise which the word of the Lord made to 
Abraham is similar to that, which the Angel of the 
Lord made to Hagar, it is probable that the Word 
and the Angel are the same. It is evident that the 
Word was an agent, because he came to Abraham, 
spake to him; told him that he was his shield, his 
exceeding great reward. But if the word of the Lord 
meant no more than his declarations and commands, 
it seems improper to represent it in this manner. 

Besides the appearance of the Angel, who is called 
Jehovah, who did what divine power only could do; 
and received, without prohibition, divine honors, there 
is recorded in the Scriptures, the appearance of many 
angels. Two angels appeared unto Lot, in Sodom s 
and brought him out of that corrupt place. But they 
did not call themselves by divine names; they did not 
perform divine works; nor did they receive divine 
27 



210 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 

honors. An angel of the Lord appeared to Manoah 
and his wife; and assured them that they should have 
a son, who should be a Nazarite unto God. But he 
refused to accept an offering at their hands; and told 
thern expressly, that if they would offer a burnt offer- 
ing, they must offer it unto the Lord. This implied 
that he was not the Lord. David saw an angel with 
his hand stretched out over Jerusalem to destroy it. 
But the Lord stayed his hand. This angel bore no 
marks of divinity. David did not sacrifice to him, but 
to the Lord. It is recorded in the Scriptures that an 
angel appeared to Joseph and to Mary, and made 
known to them important things concerning the child 
Jesus. Angels ministered unto Christ, when he was 
upon earth. Two angels were seen in his tomb after 
he had risen from the dead. 

But there are visible marks of distinction, between 
the appearance of these angels and the appearance of 
that Angel, who redeemed Israel. The latter gave 
evidence that he was God, while the former gave 
equal evidence that they were created beings. Be- 
cause God employs angels as ministering servants in 
the affairs of this lower world, it does not follow that 
the Angel of the covenant belongs to that class of 
beings. Because they are both called by the name 
angel, to denote that they are sent, it does not follow, 
that they possess the same nature; do the same works; 
or are entitled to the same honors. Each will be 
viewed and esteemed according to their distinguishing 
traits of character. 

In the New Testament God is more clearly revealed; 
a distinction in the divine nature is more clearly mark- 
ed out, and he, who under the Jewish dispensation, 
occasionally assumed a human appearance, under the 
Gospel dispensation, actually took human nature into 
union with his own. We find so exact correspondence 
between Jesus Christ and the Angel of the covenant, 
who redeemed Israel, that we infer that they are one 
and the same. It was prophesied by Malachi, "Be- 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 211 

hold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare 
the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, 
shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger 
(or Angel) of the covenant, whom ye delight in," 
Mai. 3:1. The Evangelists apply this prophecy to 
Christ and to his precursor. St. Mark, speaking of 
the Son of God, says, "As it is written in the prophets, 
behold I send my messenger before thy face, which 
shall prepare thy way before thee." He then adds 
a prophecy from Isaiah. "The voice of one crying in 
the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make 
his paths straight." The prophet Malachi foretels 
that a messenger would be sent before the Lord; and 
the Lord he represents to be even the Angel of the 
covenant. The Evangelists apply this prediction of 
the messenger to John the baptist; and the prediction 
of the Angel of the covenant to Jesus Christ. The 
conclusion then is, that the Angel and Christ are one 
and the same. 

When God promised to send the Angel before 
Israel, he said, my name is in him. Christ speaks of 
himself to the same effect. "Believest thou not that 
I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words 
that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the 
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Be- 
lieve me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in 
in me," John 14:10,11. Of the Angel it was implied 
that he could forgive sin. Christ actually exercised 
this power and authority. The apostle Paul expresses 
the same sentiment, "God was in Christ," 2 Cor. 5:19. 
The name Emmanuel, signifying God with us, which 
was given to the holy Child of Mary, implied that 
God was in him. These texts clearly evince that the 
union of God with Christ is similar to the union of 
God with the Angel; and such a union between God 
and any other being, is not exhibited in the sacred 
scriptures. There is strong evidence therefore, that 
the Angel and Christ are the same. 



212 CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 

The apostle Paul, speaking of the privileges and 
of the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness, says, 
"Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also 
tempted, and were destroyed of serpents," 1 Cor. 
10:9. 

The apostle alludes to the Israelites, when "they 
journeyed from mount Hor, by the way of the Red 
Sea, to compass the land of Edom; and the soul of 
the people was much discouraged heeause of the way; 
and the people spake against God, and against Moses, 
Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die 
in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is 
there any water," Numb. 21:4,5. The God, against 
whom they spake, was he, who brought them up out 
of Egypt; but it was the Angel, who led them from 
Egypt and guided them in the wilderness; it was the 
Angel then, whom they tempted. But the apostle 
Paul gives us to understand that it was Christ, whom 
they tempted. Therefore the Angel was Christ. 

It was the opinion of the ancient Jews, that the 
Angel, who was called Jehovah, and led and redeemed 
Israel, was not a created Angel, who personated God. 
They believed generally that he was the Word. Philo 
is explicit on this point. "In general, he asserts that 
it was the Word that appeared to Adam, Jacob and 
Moses; although in the books of Moses, it is only an 
Angel that is spoken of." It was the Word, that ap- 
peared to Abraham, (Gen. 18:1,) according to Philo; 
for he saith, it was the Word, that promised Sarah a 
son in her old age, and that enabled her to conceive 
and bring forth. It was the Word, that appeared to 
Abraham as an Angel, and that called to him not to 
hurt his son, when he was about to sacrifice him. It 
■was the Word that appeared to Hagar. It was the 
Word that appeared so many times to Jacob, although 
he be called the Angel that delivered him out of all 
his trouble. It was the image of God, which in other 
places is the same with the Word, that appeared to 
Moses in the bush. It was God that called to him 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 213 

at the same time, even the Word, whom Moses de- 
sired to see. It was the Word, who led Israel through 
the wilderness, Exod. 33: He was the Angel, in whom 
God placed his name. This Angel was he, that ap- 
peared to Moses, and the elders of Israel on mount 
Sinai, Exod. 24: It was the Word, whom those Jews 
rejected that said, "let us make a captain and return 
into Egypt," Numb. 14:4. 

The appearances of the Angel recorded in the Old 
Testament, were frequently in the form of a man. 
Once he appeared in a burning bush; once on Sinai in 
fire and smoke; at other times in a pillar of cloud. 
These were similitudes, (Numb. 12:8,) or vehicles in 
which the Angel appeared. But the Israelites did 
not see the Angel himself. He was a Spirit, and of 
course, he was not visible. "No man hath seen God 
at any time. He dwelleth in the light which no man 
can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can 
see, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of 
the Father, he hath declared him." It appears, that 
ever since the apostasy, God the Father has holden 
intercourse with this world, through a Mediator. 
"There is one God, and one Mediator, between God 
and men, the man, Christ Jesus," 1 Tim. 2:5. 

Christ officiated as Mediator between God and man, 
before his incarnation. He spoke to our first parents 
in Eden, after they had rebelled; and began to unfold 
the second, or the new covenant, the covenant of 
grace. He often spoke to the fathers; and commu- 
nicated to them the divine will. He was the Angel 
of the covenant; the Angel, who communicated to 
this world the covenant of grace. "His goings forth 
have been from of old; from everlasting," Mic. 5:2. 

Christ has employed agents, or subordinate media- 
tors between himself and this fallen world. Moses 
was a mediator between the Angel and Israel. The 
priests, who officiated at the altar were mediators 
between the Lord and the people. But the prime 
Mediator, the Mediator of the covenant, is the Son of 



214 CHRIST THE ANGEl OF THE COVENANT. 

God. It was through his mediation the saints before 
the incarnation inherited the promises. They believed 
in a Savior to come, who would make an offering for 
sin once for all; and this faith was accounted to them 
for righteousness. It was in view, and by virtue of 
that sacrifice, which he was to make, that he made 
intercession for them, and saved them from their sins. 
"No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; 
and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom 
the Son will reveal him," Luke 10:22. This text, while 
it conveys an idea that the nature of the Son is no less 
unsearchable by finite intelligence, than the nature of 
the Father, confirms the sentiment that it is the Son, 
who, from the beginning, hath revealed the Father. 
He was in the bosom of the Father, and the Father 
was in him. He was perfectly acquainted with his 
nature, and with his counsels. He was, of course, 
perfectly qualified to declare, or manifest him to the 
world. Under the former dispensation, his revela- 
tions of the divine nature and will, were often seen 
through shadows and similitudes. He gradually dis- 
closed the perfections and will of the Deity. By types 
and symbols he prefigured important realities. When 
the fulness of the time was come, he appeared in the 
world agreeably to ancient predictions and represen- 
tations. He more clearly manifested the divine nature. 
The Deity, who was often exhibited in plurality in 
the Old Testament, he revealed with these specific 
distinctions, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
The Angel, who delivered Israel from temporal evils, 
and led him to an earthly inheritance, appears in the 
New Testament a Savior from sin, not a Savior of the 
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. The Spirit, who 
was represented, just after the creation, hovering over 
the waters to impregnate them with animal life; and 
to impress form upon chaos, appears in the New Tes- 
tament, giving spiritual life to human nature, and 
restoring order in the moral world. In the Old Testa- 
ment God is represented, in the relationship of Creator, 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 215 

as the Father of the whole human race. In the New 
Testament he is represented as the Father of a 
spiritual seed; of obedient affectionate children. In 
the Old Testament he is exhibited in plurality creat- 
ing the world. In the New, he is represented with the 
peculiar distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
The same Savior, the same Sanctifier were revealed 
under the former, which were revealed under the lat- 
ter dispensation, but with less distinctness. 

There is an intimate union between God and be- 
lievers. John, in his first Epistle, says, "If we love 
one another, God dwelleth in us. Hereby know we 
that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath 
given us of his Spirit. Whosoever shall confess that 
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he 
in God." This union between God and believers is 
manifestly different from the union, which subsists be- 
tween God and the Angel, or between the Father 
and the Son. The Angel, in whom was the name of 
Jehovah was called by the highest of divine names; 
he performed divine works; and he received divine 
honors. There is no intimation that he was depend- 
ent. Jesus Christ declares his union with the Father; 
and for a confirmation of his declaration he appeals to 
his works. " What things soever the Father doeth, these 
also doeth the Son likewise. If I do not the works of 
my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye 
believe not me, believe the works." From the union, 
which subsists between the Father and the Son, the 
same works are attributed indiscriminately to each; 
and people are required to honor the Son even as 
they honor the Father. But these consequences do 
not accrue to believers by reason of their union with 
God. Their union then is of a different kind; and 
forms no argument against that higher and more inti- 
mate union, which subsists between the Father and 
the Son. 

Those who disbelieve that the Angel of the cove- 
nant was the Son of God, are not agreed in their opin- 



216 CHRIST THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT. 

ions respecting him. Some suppose that he was a 
created angel; and personated Jehovah. If this be 
correct, it is hard to draw a line of distinction between 
the creator and a creature. 

Others are of opinion that the Angel of God and 
Jehovah are equivalent. "Jehovah, the Angel of 
God, the God of Bethel, God almighty; the redeem- 
ing Angel, are all but different names and descriptions 
of Jehovah the one true God. (See Lindsey.) "It 
should seem, therefore, that in Scripture language, 
when describing the divine appearances, the Angel of 
the Lord appeared, and Jehovah appeared, are equiv- 
alent expressions." (Lowman's Tracts, p. 99.) We 
are ready to admit the judgment of these learned au- 
thors as to the equivalence of these names. We are 
ready, also to admit the judgment of other learned 
authors of the same class, who believe that the An- 
gel and he who sent him are not, in all respects, the 
same. From both we infer, as we apprehend, the 
whole truth; that the Angel is equivalent to Jehovah, 
and that there is such a distinction between them, that 
they are not in every respect the same. 

The apostle to the Hebrews contrasts the Mosaic, 
with the Gospel dispensation, and gives a superiority 
to the latter. "Therefore we ought to give the more 
earnest heed to the things, which we have heard, lest 
at any time we should let them slip. For if the word 
spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgres- 
sion and disobedience received a just recompense of 
reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great 
salvation, which, at first, began to be spoken by the 
Lord; and was confirmed unto us by them that heard 
him," Heb. 2:1,2,3. The apostle attributes greater 
excellence, and requires a more earnest heed to the 
Gospel, than to the law of Moses, because the Gospel 
was spoken immediately by the Lord Jesus, and offer- 
ed so great salvation; whereas the law was spoken 
by angels; and under that dispensation, "every trans- 
gression and disobedience received a just recompense 



CHRIST THE ANGEL OP THE COVENANT. 217 

of reward." The prime Communicator of the law, 
communicated the Gospel. It was the Angel, who 
spake to Moses in the mount Sinai and with our fathers, 
who received the lively oracles to give unto us. This 
Angel called himself, I AM. This Angel was with 
the Church in the wilderness and was tempted. The 
apostle informs us that this Angel, who was tempted 
in the wilderness, was Christ. If he who gave the 
law, and he who gave the gospel, are one and the 
same, it is inquired, why has the Gospel, on this ground, 
a preference to the law, and what is the force of St. 
Paul's reasoning. It is readily admitted that angels 
accompanied the Son of God on mount Sinai, and were 
subordinate agents in promulgating the law. The 
commandments which were given from Sinai, and all 
the revelations which were made under the Jewish 
economy, were of the same divine authority as the 
Gospel. But the circumstances were different. The 
former were communicated mediately, the latter was 
communicated immediately by the Son of God. Under 
the former dispensation he revealed the will of the 
Father through the medium of prophets. Under 
the latter dispensation he revealed his will personally. 
If that dispensation, which was communicated by God 
through intermediate hands, and whose most promi- 
nent retribution was of a temporal nature, demanded 
attention, more earnest attention does that dispensa- 
tion demand, which was communicated immediately by 
the Lord himself, and whose rewards and punishments 
are of a spiritual nature, and of eternal duration.* 

* "Grotius remarks, that the Angel, spoken of in the last text, (Mai. 3:1.) 
•was allowed even by the Jewish Rabbins to be Jehovah, and copies from Masius 
a striking passage to this purpose, out of the comment of R. Moses, the son of 
Nehemen, upon the 5th chapter of Joshua. Iste Angelus, ike. i. e. "That An- 
gel, to say the truth, is the Angel Redeemer, of whom it is written, for ray name 
is in him. He was the Angel, who said to Jacob, I am the God of Bethel; and of 
whom it is said, God called to Moses out of the midst of the bush. He was call- 
ed an Angel because he governs the world; for it is written, Jehovah (i. e. the 
Lord God,)brought us out of Egypt. It is moreover written, the Angel of his 
presence saved them. And, without doubt, the Angel of God's presence was he, 
of whom it is said, My presence shall go before thee, and I will give thee rest. In 
a word, He is the Angel, of whom the prophet spake. The Lord whom ye seek, 
shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye 
delight in. The face, or presence of God signifies God himself, which is confess- 
edly allowed bv all interpreters." (Horse Solitarise.) 

28 



I 



THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS, 
RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 



It is of no inconsiderable consequence to ascertain the 
opinion of the Jews, before and after Christ's incar- 
nation, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. They 
formed their opinion of the divine nature from the 
writings of the Old Testament. As they were per- 
fectly acquainted with the idiom of their own lan- 
guage, they were well qualified to determine the 
meaning of their own Scriptures. It appears that 
the plural name of God, which is so often used in the 
Old Testament, naturally conveys an idea of some 
kind of plurality in the divine nature. The plural 
names, given to the idols of the heathen, form no 
valid objection to this hypothesis, when it is consider- 
ed there were many of the same name. 

The writings of Philo the Jew, are very full and 
explicit on the divine nature. That he wrote some 
time before the birth of Christ has been clearly prov- 
ed by a divine of the church of England, in a treatise 
entitled, "The Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church 
against the Unitarians." In producing testimonies in 
favor of the Trinity, or of the Divinity of Christ, 
from the writings of this celebrated Jew, we shall 
quote them as they are found quoted in this English 
author. 



OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS, &C. 219 

Philo,* in several places of his writings observes, 
"That Moses, the law-giver of the Jews, made this 
his chief end to destroy the notion of polytheism." 
He then affirms, "that though it is said, God is one, yet 
this is not to be understood with respect to number." 
Though this expression is obscure, there is no doubt 
that he had an idea of purality in unity. He says, 
"God begets his Word, and his Wisdom, and that his 
Wisdom is the same with his Word; that this genera- 
tion was from all eternity; for the Word of God is the 
eternal Son of God." Philo speaks of two powers in 
God; that these powers made the world, or by them 
God created the world; that these eternal powers ap- 
peared, acted,. and spoke as real persons; and in a vis- 
ible and sensible manner." 

"It is clear how sensible the Jews have been that 
there is a notion of plurality plainly imported in the 
Hebrew text, since they have forbidden their common 
people the reading of the history of the creation, lest 
understanding it literally, it should lead them into here- 
sy. The Talmudists have invented this excuse for 
the Seventy, as to their changing the Hebrew plural, 
into a Greek singular; they say it was for fear Ptol. 
Phil, should take the Jews for polytheists." St. Je- 
rome observes the same. 

Since the time of Christ the Jews have retained 
the opinion that there is a plurality in the divine 
nature. "Both the authors of the Midrashim and the 
Cabalistical authors agree exactly in this, that they 
acknowledge a plurality in the divine essence; and 
that they reduce such a plurality to three persons as 
we do. To prove such an assertion, I take notice 
first, that the Jews do judge as we do, that the word 
Elohim, which is plural, expresses a plurality. Their 
ordinary remark upon that word is this, that Elohim 

* The following quotations from ancient Jewish authors are not made with a 
view to subscribe to all their opinions, but simply to shew that they believed 
there was a plurality in the divine Nature; that the promised Messiah was the 
Son of God; and that he was divine. 



220 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS 

is as if one did read El hem, that is, they are God. 
Bachaje, a famous Commentator of the Pentateuch, 
who brings in his work all the senses of the four sorts 
of interpreters among the Jews, speaks to this pur- 
pose upon the Parascha Breschit. fol. 2. col. 3." Allix. 
p. 160. 

"The author of Zohar is a voucher of great au- 
thority; and he cites these words of R. Jose, (a fa- 
mous Jew of the second century,) when examining 
the text, Deut. 4:7, Who have their gods so near to 
them? What, saith he, may be the meaning of this? 
It seems as if Moses should have said, Who have God so 
near them? But saith he, there is a superior God, and 
there is the God, who was the fear of Isaac, and there 
is an inferior God; and therefore Moses saith, the Gods 
so near. For there are many virtues, that come from 
the only One, and all they are one." 

"See how the same author supposes that there are 
three degrees in the Godhead, in Levit. col. 116. 
Come and see the mystery in the word Elohim, viz. 
there are three degrees, and every degree is distinct 
by himself; and notwithstanding they are all One, and 
tied in one, and one is not, and separated from the 
other. Upon the words of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Is- 
rael, the Lord our God is one Lord;" they must 
know that those three are one." 

"You have this remark of the same author in Gen. 
fol. 54, col. 2. de litera, jy that the three branches 
of that letter denote the heavenly Fathers, who are 
there named Jehovah, our Lord, Jehovah." 

"R. Hay Hagahon, who lived seven hundred years 
ago, said there are three lights in God; the ancient 
light, or Kadrnon; the pure light, the purified light, 
and that these make but one God: and that there is 
neither plurality nor polytheism in this. The same 
idea is followed by R. Shem Tov." 

"If you would know their (i. e. the Cabalists) 
opinion, to whom it was that God did speak at the 
creation, Gen. 1:26, R. Juda will tell you God spoke 



RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 221 

to his Word. If you would know of them, who is the 
Spirit of whom we read, Gen. 1:2, that he moved on the 
face of the waters, Moses Botril will inform you, it is 
the Holy Spirit." 

The Chaldee paraphrases are consonant with the 
opinion of Philo respecting the divine nature. "They 
ascribe the creation of the world to the Word. They 
make it the Word that appeared to the ancients under 
the name of the Angel of the Lord. That Abraham 
swore by the Word. The Word led Israel in the pil- 
lar of a cloud. The Word spake out of the fire at 
Horeb." The Jews inferred from their Scriptures 
that the promised Messiah was the Son of God. "Philo 
in his pieces hath preserved the sense of the ancient 
Jews in this matter, that this Son was the Aoyog, as 
where he saith, that the Word, by whom they swear 
was begotten; that God begat his Wisdom according 
to Solomon, Prov. 8:24, which Wisdom is no other 
than the Aoyog-, that the Aoyog is the most ancient 
Son; the eternal Spirit of God; that his Word is his 
image and his first born; that the Word is the Son of 
God, before the Angels; that the unity of God is not 
to be reduced to number; that God is unus, not uni- 
cus." 

"Nothing can be more express for to prove that 
there is a Son in the Godhead, than what we read in 
the Targum of Jerusalem, Gen. 3:22. The word of 
Jehovah said, here Adam, whom I created, is the only be- 
gotten Son in the world, as I am the only begotten Son in 
the high Heaven." Philo calls the Aoyog "the first 
born of God, the eternal Word of the eternal God, 
begotten by the Father," 

"In Isaiah 4:2, the Messias is called the Branch of 
the Lord, no doubt as properly as he is called the 
branch of David, Jer. 23:5. "In that day, saith he, the 
branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious," 
which is in Jonathan's paraphrase interpreted of the 
Messias. From which it is natural to conclude that 



222 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS 

the proper Son of God was to be the Messias, and 
the Messias was to be the proper Son of God." 

"The Targum on Jer. 23: acknowledges the Messias 
to be there treated of, and yet he is called in this place, 
the Lord of our righteousness. See to the same pur- 
pose the Targum on Jer. 33:14. The learned M. 
Edzardi has proved that the same interpretation of 
these words of Jeremy, hath continued among the 
Jews from the time of Jesus Christ, without inter- 
ruption, till these latter days; and this he hath done 
from a great number of Jewish authors." 

"Philo says that the eternal Word appeared to 
Abraham. And elsewhere he names that Angel or 
Word, Jehovah." 

"Philo says that it was the Word which appeared to 
the Jews upon mount Sinai; that God spoke to the 
Jews when he gave them his laws." 

"Philo avows that the Word was the eternal Son 
of God. He calls him the first born and the Creator 
of the world." 

St. John expresses the same sentiment at the com- 
mencement of his Gospel. "In the beginning was the 
Word. All things were made by him and without 
him was not any thing made that was made." He 
expresses the same opinion of Christ, which the Jews 
before him had expressed. 

It has been attempted to invalidate the authority 
of Philo, by saying that he learned his notions of the 
Trinity from Plato. But the testimony of heathen 
will remove this objection. "The very heathen au- 
thors own that Plato borrowed his notions from Moses, 
as Numenius, who (as Theodoret tells us) did ac- 
knowledge that Plato had learnt in Egypt the doctrine 
of the Hebrews, during his stay there for thirteen 
years;" Theod. Serm. 1. 

That the ancient Jews believed in a plurality in 
the divine nature, and in the Divinity of the Mes- 
siah, is supported by the Chaldee paraphrases. 
These paraphrases exhibit the Messias or Word, 



RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 223 

in a similar manner to that, which the writers 
of the New Testament exhibit him. The Jerusalem 
Targum on Gen. 1:27, says, "The Word of the Lord 
created man in his own image." When God appeared 
to our first parents after they had sinned, it is said, 
"they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the 
midst of the garden." Philo says that it was the 
Word of the Lord, that appeared to them. "So both 
Onkelos and Jonathan have it, that Adam and his wife 
heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking 
in the garden." The Jerusalem Targum makes use 
of a similar mode of expression. 

"The Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out 
of heaven, the second time; and said, by myself have 
I sworn, saith the Lord," &c. "There both Onkelos 
and Jonathan have it, By my Word have I sworn, saith 
the Lord." When it is considered, that the ancient 
Jews believed that the Word was God, they might 
with propriety say that God swore by his Word; and 
with equal propriety might the apostle say, that God 
swore by himself. Many other quotations might be 
made from the Targums of similar import and of sim- 
ilar application. 

But it is objected that there is no weight in the 
argument drawn from the Targums, because the 
Hebrew word for God, is often translated or para- 
phrased in the Chaldee language, the Word of the 
Lord; that this is the idiom of that language; and that 
it signifies neither more nor less than God himself. 
But the Chaldee word Mimra is sometimes used dif- 
ferently and separately by the paraphrasts. "We 
read in Jonathan's Targum, that Jacob vowed a vow 
to the Word, saying, if the Word of the Lord will 
be my help, &c. then shall the Lord be my God." In 
the first part of this quotation, the term Word, or 
Mimra is used by itself; and it is used as synonymous 
with Lord. In the same manner does St. John use the 
word AoyoQ. 



224 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS 

Onkelos on Exodus 29:42, says, "I will appoint my 
Word to speak with thee there, and I will appoint 
my Word there for the children of Israel." Here 
the paraphrast makes a distinction between I and 
Word; a distinction not unlike that, which Christians 
make between the Father and the Word. When it 
is considered, that Philo viewed the Aoyog as the 
promised Messias, it is highly probable that his He- 
brew brethren had the same idea of it when they 
wrote their Targums, notwithstanding all that Pri- 
deaux, Louis Capellus, and father Simon have said 
about the peculiar idiom of the Chaldee language. 

Onkelos and Jonathan on Num. 22:9, paraphrase 
thus, "The Word came from before the Lord, and 
said." The objection drawn from the idiom of the 
Chaldee language will not apply to this phraseology. 
The manner of expression denotes a distinction be- 
tween the Word and the Lord; and as the critics 
upon the idiom of the Targums acknowledge that the 
Word is synonymous with Lord, we have all we con- 
tend for. For a further view of this subject, see 
Allix Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against 
the Unitarians. 

The quotations, which have just been made from 
ancient Jewish authors are extracted from the works 
of Allix. "And what advantage do we derive from 
the labors of others, if we can never confide in them, 
and occasionally save ourselves some trouble by their 
means?"* 

The Messiah was revealed to the Jews by the 
name Son. When God speaks of him by that name, 
he calls him my Son. In the 2d Psalm, God is intro- 
duced addressing a certain personage, "Thou art my 
Son, this day have I begotten thee." Then he com- 
mands, saying, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry." It 
is generally, if not universally, admitted that this Psalm, 
or at least, so much of it as describes the Son, is ap- 

* Piiestlev 



RESPECTING THE SON OF GOD. 225 

plied to the Messiah. If there were any doubt on 
this point, the apostle to the Hebrews can remove 
the difficulty; for he quotes this passage in relation to 
Jesus Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles it is quoted 
in the same connexion: "I will be his Father and he 
shall be my Son." If this prophecy hadjfa primary ref- 
erence to Solomon, its ultimate reference was to Christ; 
for the apostle Paul quotes it with this reference. 

The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the Messiah, saith, 
"Unto us a Son is given." God, by the prophet Hosea, 
saith, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and 
called my Son out of Egypt." The prophecj', con- 
tained in the latter part of this text undoubtedly relates 
to Christ; for St. Matthew quotes it in relation to him, 
and as fulfilled in him. 

We learn in the New Testament, what opinion of 
the Messiah the Jews had formed from these charac- 
teristic descriptions. Jesus repeatedly called God his 
Father. He therefore implicitly called himself his 
Son. Many times he expressly called himself his Son, 
his only begotten Son. On a certain occasion Jesus 
called God his Father in the hearing of the Jews. 
They were offended; because they understood him 
by this expression and by claiming this title, to make 
himself equal with God. (Taov rcf 0£<y) The word 
icrov literally signifies equal; and it is in vain to attempt 
to reduce it below this signification. In other places 
it is translated, and it is correctly translated equal. 
St. John, describing the city Jerusalem, says, "The 
length, and the breadth, and the height of it are (&«) 
equal. There can be no doubt respecting the correct- 
ness of the translation of the word in this passage. 

But if this word were of doubtful signification, what 
the Jews said to Christ on another occasion exhibits 
in a clear light their opinion of the name, Son of God. 
Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The Jews 
accused him of blasphemy because that he being a man 
made himself God. It appears that they had formed 
their opinion from the prophets that the Messias was 
29 



226 OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENT JEWS. 

the Son of God; and by their answers to Jesus, it ap- 
pears that they considered the Son of God to be, or 
to be equal to, God. Had they believed that Jesus 
was their expected Messias, they would not have 
accused him of blasphemy because he called God his 
Father. During the short time that they believed 
that he was the Messias, no honors were too great to 
be bestowed upon him. But when they found that 
he did not grant them that deliverance which they 
expected, their opinion changed. They viewed him 
as a mere man; and of course, a blasphemer, because 
he pretended to be the Son of God. Adam, Israel, 
believers, and angels are called sons of God. The 
Jews understood Christ, claiming a higher relationship 
to God than these; a relationship, which implied 
divinity. In answer to the accusing Jews, Christ vindi- 
cated himself against the charge of blasphemy upon 
their own principles, and agreeably to their own 
Scriptures. If they might be called gods, to whom 
the word of God came, he inferred that he himself, 
whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the 
world, might, without blasphemy, be called the Son 
of God. But he referred them to his works for proof 
of his union with the Father. 

When Christ was on trial before the council, the 
high priest adjured him by the living God, that he 
should tell them whether he was the Christ, the Son 
of God. This demand implied that the high priest 
believed that the promised Christ was the Son of God. 
His question was, whether Jesus was this personage. 
When he answered in the affirmative; and told him 
that he should see the Son of man sitting on the right 
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, 
the high priest accused him of blasphemy. This rep- 
resentation clearly implies that the high priest believ- 
ed that the promised Messiah was the Son of God; 
that the Son of God was divine; that Jesus was blas- 
phemous for pretending to divinity, when he was, in 
his estimation, a mere man. 



THE OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 
RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 



The sacred scriptures contain a perfect system of 
religion. Their parts correspond and harmonize. 
Those doctrines, which are most momentous run 
through the whole sacred volume. They not only 
cast light upon each other; but they are their own 
interpreters. The same doctrine, expressed in dif- 
ferent ways, exhibited in different points of view, and 
attended with different circumstances, presents itself 
with greater clearness, than if it made but a solitary 
appearance. So fully and clearly are the leading 
truths of the Gospel expressed, that we need not de- 
pend on the creeds of others for articles of our own 
belief. On the other hand, we ought not to be so 
self-wise as to refuse a hearing of the opinions and 
arguments of others. We ought to examine them 
with impartiality, and bring them, for decision, to the 
test of God's word. 

We feel an anxiety to know the religious senti- 
ments of those eminent Christians, who were cotem- 
porary with the apostles, or succeeded them during 
a few of the first centuries. We do not look to them 
for infallibility. But if we look to any, since the 
apostolic age, for the greatest correctness of senti- 
ment and purity of character, we naturally look to 
those Christians, who lived nearest to the time of 



228 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

divine inspiration; who were best acquainted with 
apostolic example; and whose creeds were tried by 
fire. 

In the first century disputes arose in the church, 
which required the authority of apostles to decide. 
It is not surprising that difference of sentiment should 
early obtain in the church, when it is considered that 
it was composed of Jews and Gentiles, who had not 
entirely outgrown their attachment to their former 
religions; and blended their different systems of phi- 
losophy with Christianity. Modern writers are not 
agreed in opinion, what was then truth, and what was 
error; or what was orthodoxy, and what was heresy. 
People of opposite sentiments find something in that 
early period, which they enlist into the service of their 
own cause. It is contended that the apostles taught 
that Christ was merely human; and that a belief of 
his divinity, and of the doctrine of the Trinity, were 
innovations in the Christian system. The first, who 
openly avowed the mere humanity of Christ, are con- 
sidered by some the legitimate followers of the apos- 
tles; and those, who believed his divinity, are consid- 
ered by them, corrupters of the Christian faith. (See 
Priestley's History of the Corruptions of the Church.) 

In the latter part of the first, and in the beginning 
of the second century, the Gnostics, or Docetae, and 
the Ebionites, commanded considerable notice. The 
Gnostics pretended to restore to mankind a knowl- 
edge of the Supreme Being. They derived their 
origin from blending the oriental philosophy with 
Christianity. They held that the world was created 
by one or more evil, or imperfect beings. They de- 
nied the divine authority of the books of the Old Tes- 
tament. They said much in favor of the serpent, 
who beguiled Eve. They held that evil resided in 
matter as its centre; and many other things equally 
repugnant to the inspired writings. When they had 
so far departed from the simplicity of the Gospel, it 
cannot be expected that they would entertain very 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 229 

just notions of Christ. "They denied his Deity, look- 
ing upon him as the Son of God, and consequently infe- 
rior to the Father; and they rejected his humanity, 
upon the supposition that every thing concrete and 
corporeal is in itself essentially and intrinsically evil. 
From hence the greatest part of the Gnostics denied 
that Christ was clothed with a real body, or that he 
suffered really." Some of them subjected themselves 
to the greatest austerities; but others gave them- 
selves up to almost unbounded licentiousness." (See 
JHosheirn's Eccles. His.) It is presumed that none, 
at the present day, will contend that their sentiments 
were congenial with those of the apostles; or that 
they had not corrupted the doctrines of the Gospel. 
John undoubtedly had this class of Christians in view, 
when he wrote his first epitsle. "Hereby know ye 
the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that 
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And 
every spirit, that confesseth not, that Jesus Christ is 
come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit 
of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should 
come, and even now already is it in the world," 1 John 
4:2,3. 

The Ebionites made their first appearance near the 
close of the first century. These Jewish Christians 
are thought to have derived their name from their 
poverty. They disbelieved the miraculous conception 
of Jesus; but held that he was the son of Joseph and 
Mary, according to the ordinary course of nature. 
They denied his divinity. But what evidence is there 
that this class of Christians had kept the faith, as it 
was delivered to the saints? They were members of 
the church at Jerusalem, which had been planted by 
the apostles, therefore, it is inferred, they must have 
retained the doctrines taught by the apostles. This 
inference is not conclusive, if the premises were 
correct, because even in the apostle's days, many had 
departed from sound doctrine; and had imbibed gross 
opinions of the Gospel. The church of JLaodicea had 



230 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

departed from her first faith before the apostle John 
had passed off from the stage. Of course, their prox- 
imity to the apostles does not prove the correctness 
of their sentiments. 

The Ebionites believed that the ceremonial law of 
Moses was of universal obligation; and that an obser- 
vance of it was essential to salvation. They held the 
apostle Paul in abhorrence, and treated his writings 
with the utmost disrespect. They incorporated with 
the ceremonial law the superstitions of their an- 
cestors, and the ceremonies and the traditions of the 
Pharisees. They denied that Christ made a propi- 
tiatory sacrifice for sin; and they believed that justifi- 
cation came by the works of the law. (See Mosheim's 
Eccles. His. vol. i, p. 174; and Milner, vol. i, p. 138.) 
Is it to this class of Christians we are to look for 
sound doctrine? Is it to those, who discarded a con- 
siderable part of the New Testament, we are to look 
for primitive faith; for right sentiments of Jesus 
Christ? There appears to be as much authority for 
admitting the correctness of the sentiments of the 
Gnostics and Docetse, as for admitting the correctness 
of those of the Ebionites. Suppose then we admit 
them both. They counteract each other. One main- 
tains the humanity of Christ; the other denies it. One 
maintains his derived divinity; the other denies it 
Between them both, they deny his existence. 

The writings of St. John were evidently levelled 
against these two denominations of Christians. It is 
generally admitted that his First Epistle was directed 
against the Gnostics or Docetae. He was very par- 
ticular; and very decisive. "Every spirit that con- 
fessed that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of 
God. And every spirit that confessefh not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God," 1 John 4: 
2,3. These declarations bear also, directly against 
the Ebionites. The Jews expected that the Messiah 
was the Christ; that the Christ was the Son of God; 
and that the Son of God was divine. Andrew said to 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 231 

his brother, "we have found the Messias, which is, 
being interpreted, the Christ." A woman of Samaria 
said unto Jesus at a certain time, "I know that Mes- 
sias cometh, which is called Christ," John 1:41; and 
4:25. Peter, at a certain time, expressed his belief 
in the most decisive manner. "We believe and are 
sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living 
God," John 6:69. When Jesus was tried before Cai- 
phas, "the high priest, he answered and said unto him, 
I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, 
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God," Mat. 
26:63. In both these texts, Christ and Son of God, 
are equivalent. When Christ called God his Father, 
or himself the Son of God, the Jews understood him 
to make himself God, or equal to God," John 5:18; 
and 10:33. From this it is evident that it was an 
opinion among the Jews, that the Christ had exist- 
ence before he came into the world, and that he was 
divine. With this in view we easily get the meaning 
of John, when he applies his observations to the 
Ebionites, who were Jews. "Every spirit that con- 
fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of 
God." In the flesh, expresses the manner, in which he 
came. Is come in the flesh, conveys an idea, that he 
had existence before he appeared in this manner. 

If Christ had been a mere man, and John had be- 
lieved him to be no more, it is not probable he would 
have used this phraseology. That he did consider 
him to be more than a man, appears evident from the 
beginning of his epistle. Here he speaks of the 
Word of life, which he had heard, seen, contemplated 
on, and handled. In the next verse he calls the Word 
of life, the Life. "For the Life was manifested, and 
we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you 
that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was 
manifested unto us." What, or who was the Word of 
life; that Life; that eternal Life, which was with the 
Father, which was manifested to the apostles, and of 
which they testified? It is evident that it was Jesus 



232 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

Christ. Christ, according to the record which John 
made of him, called himself the Life. But we will 
let St. John speak for himself. In the beginning of 
his Gospel he says, "In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
The same was in the beginning with God. In him 
was life; and the Life was the light of men. And 
the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," John 
1:1,2,4,14. It appears evident that St. John exhibited 
the same personage in the beginning of his Epistle, 
which he exhibited in the beginning of his Gospel; 
and it is evident that he, whom he introduced in the 
beginning of his Gospel was Jesus Christ. If St. 
John designed, by the names, the Word, God, eternal 
Life, to convey an idea of a mere man, he used these 
words in an unusual sense. If a belief of the divinity 
of Christ had been the prevailing heresy of the time, 
it is not probable that St. John would have endeav- 
ored to discountenance this error by applying a divine 
attribute, a divine name, a divine work to Jesus Christ. 
It cannot be supposed he would have used this lan- 
guage to establish the mere humanity of Christ. 

It is evident that the doctrine of the Ebionites 
respecting the mere humanity of Christ, was consid- 
ered heretical by the church in the time of Irenagus, 
"who wrote his books against heresies in the year 176 
or 177. For in the list, which he hath given of her- 
etics, lib. 1, he places the Ebionites between the Ce- 
rinthians and Nicolaitans, both of them acknowledged 
heretics. And in his third book, he refutes by testi- 
monies from the scriptures, the opinion of those, who 
affirmed that. Christ was a mere man, engendered of 
Joseph: which was precisely the opinion of the proper 
Ebionites." (Macknight.) "It is certain that Gnostics 
and Ebionites were always looked on as perfectly dis- 
tinct from the Christian church. There needs no more 
evidence to prove this than their arrangement by Ire- 
naeus and Eusebius under heretical parties." (Milncr.) 
If this doctrine was so early considered heretical, it is 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 233 

not probable that it was a doctrine taught by the 
apostles. (See Horseley's third Sup. Disq.) 

In the second century Christianity suffered much 
by attempts to blend with it the oriental and Egyp- 
tian philosophy. Praxeas, a man distinguished for 
genius and learning, undertook to explain the doctrine 
of the Trinity, so that it might be understood. "He 
denied any real distinction between the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, and maintained that the Father, sole 
Creator of all things, had united to himself the human 
nature of Christ." (Mosheim.) His followers were 
called Monarchians, and also Patropassians, because 
they believed, or it was inferred from their belief, that 
the Father was so intimately united with the man 
Christ, that he actually suffered with him. But "it 
does not appear that this sect formed to themselves 
a separate place of worship, or removed themselves 
from the ordinary assemblies of Christians." From 
this circumstance it does not follow that they were 
sound in faith; or that they were not considered her- 
etics. The orthodox and the heterodox have, more 
or less, worshipped together from the first century. 
But this is essentially different from retaining in the 
bosom of the church those, who had perverted the 
doctrines of Christianity. Praxeas was persecuted for 
the sentiments he inculcated respecting the Father, 
Son and Spirit. If this cast a shade upon the dispo- 
sition of his opponents, it proves that he was in the 
minority; and the church esteemed his doctrine her- 
etical. It can hardly be supposed that the church 
generally, at so early a period, had lost the knowledge 
of the nature and character of Jesus Christ; and that 
this knowledge was preserved among those, who de- 
nied the Lord Jesus Christ. It is more probable that 
sound doctrine could, at this early period, be found in 
the body of the church, than among those individuals 
and parties, who had blended philosophy with Chris- 
tianity; and attributed real suffering to the Father. 
The opinion of Praxeas is not verv different from the 
30 



234 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

opinion of some of modern time. If he, so soon after 
the apostle's days, was deemed a heretic, it is not sur- 
prising that those of similar opinions, at the present 
day, should be deemed the same. 

There is a number of men, who succeeded the apos- 
tles, very different in sentiment from the Docetce, 
Gnostics, Cerinthians, Ebionites and Patropassians; 
and much more like the apostles. We should rather 
look to them for apostolic sentiments. 

Clement, bishop of Rome, was for a time cotempo- 
rary with the apostle Paul; but survived him a number 
of years. The apostle makes honorable mention of 
him; calls him his fellow laborer; and says that his 
name was in the book of life. Many writings have 
been attributed to him, of which, it is generally agreed, 
he was not the author. This circumstance affords 
evidence that his name was of great weight in the 
church. One epistle to the Corinthians, bearing his 
name is considered genuine. In this he expresses 
much of the sentiment and spirit of the apostles. 
Speaking of Christ, he says, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Sceptre of the Majesty of God, came not in the 
pomp of arrogance and pride; though who can under- 
stand the thunder of his power? But he was meek 
and lowly." The Sceptre of the Majesty when applied 
to Christ conveys an idea of his authority and govern- 
ment; and it appears to be parallel with what Christ 
said of himself after his resurrection. "All power 
(i. e. authority) is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth." To be the Sceptre of God's Majesty; to pos- 
sess all authority in heaven and in earth, conveys an 
idea of divine authority. If it was delegated, it 
appears that the recipient must be divine; or he would 
not be capable of performing its functions. "Who 
can understand the thunder of his power?" This 
sublime language, which he applied to Christ, he bor- 
rowed from Job, who applied it to God in his descrip- 
tion of his Power and Majesty. In this he imitated 
the apostles, who applied to Christ what had been, 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 235 

in the Old Testament, applied to God. After Clement 
had thus spoken of the divine dignity and glory of the 
Savior, he adds, "he was meek and lowly." In this 
manner, he imitated the apostles by exhibiting the 
Lord Jesus in his divine and human nature; as the 
Sceptre of God's Majesty; and as occupying the low 
condition of humanity. 

Again Clement speaks of Christ, "Have we not all 
one God, one Christ, one Spirit of grace poured upon 
us, and one calling in Christ?" — "Through him, that 
is Jesus Christ, let us behold the glory of God shining 
in his face." This language appears much like that 
of the apostles; and if their's were not explained away, 
it appears that this would naturally give us an idea of 
Christ's divinity. When the dispute ran high, whether 
Christ was merely divine, or merely human, it appears 
that Clement, who was well acquainted with the 
apostle's opinion on this subject, if he had believed 
the simple humanity of Jesus, would not have spoken 
of him in language, which was appropriate to God. 

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, suffered martyrdom in 
the year 107. He was a disciple of St. John; and 
was, undoubtedly, acquainted with his sentiments of 
Jesus Christ. When he was questioned by Trajan 
respecting his religion, among other things he said, 
"There is only one God, who made heaven, and earth, 
the sea and all that is in them; and one Jesus Christ, 
his only begotten Son, whose kingdom be my portion." 
By the name only begotten Son, he undoubtedly meant 
what Christ meant, when he called himself the Son 
of God; what Peter meant, when he called him the 
Son of the living God; what the high priest meant 
when he adjured him to tell them whether he was 
the Christ, the Son of God. It is evident that by Son 
of God, the Jews understood God, or equality with 
God. It is probable he used the name Son of God in 
its popular sense. 

Ignatius, in his salutation to the Church at Ephesus, 
calls them "elect in the genuine suffering, by the will 



236 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

of the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God," &c. It 
is not surprising, that he should imitate the apostle, 
whose disciple he was; and call his Master God; and 
by this name mean the same, which he meant. 

"One Physician there is, bodily and spiritual, begot- 
ten and unbegotten, God appearing in flesh, in immor- 
tal, true life, both from Mary and from God, first 
suffering then impassible." This language appears 
to be plain. It naturally conveys an idea of two 
natures in the Physician Jesus Christ; that one nature 
was literally begotten; that the other nature was not 
thus begotten; that divine nature appeared in human- 
ity; that the one was from Mary, the other from God; 
that one was capable of sulfering, and the oilier was 
not. It is worthy of notice, that Ignatius called this 
Physician God appearing in flesh; and alsoyrowi God. 
If God without distinction in his nature dwelt in the 
man Christ Jesus, there appears to be an incongruity 
in saying that God was from God. He states that 
this Physician is both from Mary and from God. 
That he was from Mary in his human nature, is not 
disputed. But in what sense was he from God? Is it 
in no other sense than he was sent from God as John 
was sent? Suppose this to be the meaning. Suppose 
Christ to be a mere man, as was his forerunner. In 
what sense then was he unbegotten; in what sense was 
he God appearing in flesh; in what sense was he 
impassible? It is difficult to explain away all the parts 
of this passage of Ignatius by any one rule; or by 
different rules, which will not clash. 

Ignatius, endeavoring to bring off, or preserve the 
Ephesians from Judaism, observes, "The divine 
prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. For this 
they were persecuted, being inspired by his grace to 
assure the disobedient that there is one God, who 
manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his 
eternal Word. — But live according to the life of the 
Lord, in which also our Life rose again by himself. — 
That you may be well assured of the nativity, suffer- 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 237 

mg and resurrection, during the government of Pon- 
tius Pilate, of which literally and really, Jesus Christ 
was the subject." This language, which he applied 
to Christ, bears a strong resemblance of the language 
of St. John. They both call Jesus Christ Son of 
God. They both call him the Word. Ignatius calls 
him eternal Word. They both call him Life. St. 
John calls him "that eternal Life." They both attri- 
bute to him eternity. This attribute cannot, with 
propriety, be applied to a mere creature, or to a 
derived being. 

Ignatius, in view of his death speaks of Christ thus: 
"He is my gain laid up for me, suffer me to imitate the 
passion of my God." In a preceding quotation he 
represented Christ first suffering, then impassible. In 
this quotation he calls him God, and in this name attri- 
butes to him sufferings. He did not, probably, design 
to convey an idea that divine nature suffered. He had 
declared the contrary. In consequence of the inti- 
mate union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ, 
he called him God, without making a distinction of 
natures; and without this distinction he attributed suf- 
fering to him. This is agreeable to our manner of 
speaking concerning man. We say he is mortal; 
whereas his better part is immortal. The phraseology 
of Ignatius clearly conveys an idea of two natures in 
Jesus Christ. 

Again he speaks of the Savior. "I glorify Jesus 
Christ, our God, who hath given you wisdom. For I 
understand that you are perfect in the immovable 
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, who really was of the 
seed of David according to the flesh; born of the vir- 
gin really; who really suffered under Pontius Pilate. 
Consider the times, and expect him, who is above all 
time, who is unconnected with time, the invisible One, 
made visible for us, the impassible, but passible for 
us; who bore all sorts of sufferings for us." When 
Ignatius was led to execution, "He prayed to the Son 



238 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

of God in behalf of the churches, that he would put 
a stop to the persecution." (Milner.) 

If we consider the time, in which Ignatius lived, his 
writings will appear with greater perspicuity and per- 
tinence. The Docetae and Ebionites had gained ground, 
and were prevailing. He wished to discountenance 
these sects, and he directed his observations against 
them. When he said that Christ was really of the 
seed of David, was born of the virgin really, and really 
suffered under Pontius Pilate, he repelled the senti- 
ment of the Docetae, who held that Christ was not 
really human, but had only the appearance of a 
man. When he called him impassible, unconnected 
with time, eternal Word and God, he repelled the 
sentiment of the Ebionites, who believed that Christ 
was merely human. Had Ignatius been of this opin- 
ion, and designed to discountenance the belief that 
Christ was divine, it is incredible that he should call 
him impassible, eternal, and even call him God. This 
language would be directly opposite to his design. 
But if he believed that Christ was both human and 
divine, his language appears to be appropriate. He 
sets forth both natures in language, which is adapted 
to both. When it is considered that Ignatius was the 
disciple of John; that his language and sentiment bore 
a striking resemblance of, and coincidence with, the 
language and sentiment of that apostle, the testimony 
of this Christian father appears with great authority. 
After he had given such a representation of Christ, 
he appears consistent with himself, when, at the close 
of life, he directs his prayer to him in behalf of the 
church.* 

Justin Martyr bore testimony, in a clear and decisive 
manner, to the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was "a 
man of eminent piety and considerable learning, who 
from a pagan philosopher, became a Christian martyr. 
He had frequented all the different sects of philoso- 

* Concerning the genuineness and authenticity of Ignatius' epistles, see 
Horseley's Letters to Priestley. 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 239 

phy in an ardent and impartial pursuit of truth, and 
finding neither among stoics nor Peripatetics, neither 
in the Pythagorean, nor Platonic schools, any satis- 
factory account of the perfections of the Supreme 
Being, and the nature and destination of the human 
soul, he embraced Christianity on account of the light 
which it cast upon these interesting subjects." 

This Christian philosopher expressed his belief in 
the following manner, when he was arraigned before 
an officer and questioned respecting his religion. "We 
believe the one only God, to be the Creator of all 
things, visible and invisible, and confess our Lord Jesus 
Christ to be the Son of God, foretold by the prophets 
of old, and who shall hereafter appear the Judge of 
mankind, a Savior, teacher, and master to all those, 
who are duly instructed by him. As for myself I am 
too mean to be able to say any thing becoming his 
infinite Deity. This was the business of the prophets, 
who ages ago had foretold the coming of the Son of 
God into the world." In this quotation, Justin makes 
a distinction between God and the Son of God. But 
he attributes to him unqualified divinity, viz. "infinite 
Deity." He understood the prophets to prophesy of 
Christ, possessing infinite Deity. He appeared to 
agree with the Jews in this particular, that by the 
name, Son of God, was to be understood God, or one 
equal with God. 

In his dialogue with Trvpho, the Jew, this enemy 
of Christianity charges him with paradox and foolish- 
ness. Justin takes him on his own ground, and shews 
that if Christ's divinity could not be demonstrated, he 
ought to be acknowledged the Christ of God, on ac- 
count of the exact correspondence between his char- 
acter and the Messiah, predicted by the prophets. 

"In another part of the same dialogue, (p. 56.) he 
speaks of Christ as the God of Israel, who was with 
Moses, and shews what he meant when he said that 
true Christians regarded what they were taught by 
the prophets. In his First Apology, he tells the 



240 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

emperor in what sense the Christians were atheists, 
they did not worship the gods commonly so called, 
but they (p. 137) worshipped and adored the true 
God and his Son, and the prophetic spirit, honoring 
them in word and in truth." This quotation needs no 
comment. It is plain, and expressive of the sentiment 
which he entertained of the Son and Spirit. 

Justin suffered martyrdom about the year 163. He 
appears to have imbibed the sentiments of the apos- 
tles respecting the Son and Spirit. He appears to 
be clear in his belief of their distinction and divinity. 
His sentiments of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, are of 
no inconsiderable weight. He was a man of learning. 
He appeared to be an impartial inquirer after truth. 
He evinced his sincerity by suffering death for the 
cause of Christ. 

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, suffered martyrdom, 
A. D. 167. "The apostles, and we may apprehend 
St. John particularly, ordained him to this office. He 
had been familiarly conversant with the apostles, and 
received the government of the church from those 
who had been eye- witnesses and ministers of our Lord, 
and continually taught that which he had been taught 
by them."* It does not appear that he sought the 
honor of martyrdom. But when he was brought to 
execution he suffered death with Christian fortitude. 

When he was bound, and the preparations were 
made for burning him, he addressed the following 
prayer to God. "O Father of thy beloved and blessed 
Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have attained the 
knowledge of thee, O God of angels and principalities, 
and of all creation, and of all the just, who live in 
thy sight, I bless thee that thou hast counted me wor- 
thy of this day, and this hour, to receive my portion 
in the number of martyrs, in the cup of Christ, for the 
resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and body, in 
the incorruptionof the Holy Ghost, among whom may 

• Milner's Church History, vol. i, p. 176, Boston edition. 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 241 

I be received before thee this day as a sacrifice well 
savored, and acceptable, as thou the faithful and true 
God hast prepared, declaring beforehand, and fulfil- 
ling accordingly. Wherefore I praise thee for all 
those things, I bless thee, I glorify thee, by the eter- 
nal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy well beloved Son; 
through whom with him in the Holy Spirit, be glory 
to thee, both now and for ever. Amen." This prayer 
is expressed in language truly apostolical. The mar- 
tyr addressed the Father through his beloved and 
blessed Son. In connexion with him he named the 
Holy Spirit. He called Jesus Christ the eternal High 
Priest. There is nothing in his language, which 
appears to be directed particularly against any pre- 
vailing error. It appears to be truly devotional. 
Whoever would gather the doctrine of the Trinity 
from the language of the apostles, would undoubtedly 
perceive it in his. 

The church of Smyrna wrote a letter to the church 
of Phiiomelium concerning the character and death 
of Polycarp. Speaking of Jesus Christ, they said, 
"that it is not possible for us to forsake Christ, who 
suffered for the salvation of all, who are saved of the 
human race, nor ever to worship any other. For we 
adore him as being the Son of God." This sentiment 
expressed by a church, appears to be of no inconsid- 
erable weight, when it is considered what honorable 
mention was made of it by Christ to his servant John. 
"I know thy works and tribulation and poverty, but 
thou art rich." 

Melito, bishop of Sardis, belongs to the second cen- 
tury. Speaking of the Christians, he says, "the Chris- 
tians do not adore insensible stones, but that they 
worship one God alone, who is before all things, and 
in all things, and Jesus Christ, who is God before all 
ages." Milner makes the following quotation from 
Eusebius. "Who knoweth not that the works of 
Irenseus, Melito, and all other Christians, do confess 
Christ to be both God and man. In fine, how many 
31 



242 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

psalms and hymns, and canticles were from the 
beginning by faithful Christians, which celebrate 
Christ, the Word of God, as no other than God in- 
deed?" 

Irenaeus lived in the latter part of the second, and 
in the beginning of the third century. He suffered 
martyrdom under Septimius Severus. Speaking of 
tradition, he said, "It is what several barbarous 
nations observe, who believe in Jesus without paper 
or ink, having the doctrine of salvation written on 
their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and faithfully keeping 
up to ancient tradition concerning one God, the Creator, 
and his Son Jesus Christ." 

Speaking of Christ, Irenaeus observed, "He united 
man to God; for if man had not overcome the adver- 
sary of man, the enemy could not have been legally 
conquered. And again, if God had not granted salva- 
tion, we should not have been put in firm possession 
of it, and if man had not been united to God, he could 
not have been made partaker of immortality. It 
behoved then the Mediator between God and man, 
by his affinity with both, to bring both into agreement 
with each other. The Word of God, Jesus Christ, 
on account of his immense love, became what we are, 
that he might make us what he is." In these quota- 
tions Irenaeus has declared his belief thai the Son of 
God, or the Word of God, is Jesus Christ; and that he 
partakes of human and divine nature. 

The book, entitled the Epistle of St. Barnabas, 
though not the composition of the apostle Barnabas, 
is allowed to have been written in the apostolic age. 
"The Lord," says Barnabas, "submitted to suffer for 
our soul, although he be the Lord of the whole earth, 
unto whom he said the day before the world was 
finished, "Let us make man after our image, and our 
likeness." Again, — "for if he had not come in the 
flesh, how could we mortals seeing him have been 
preserved, when they, who behold the sun, which is 
to perish, and is the work of his hands, are unable to 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 243 

look directly against its rays." Again, — "if then the 
Son of God being Lord, and being to judge the quick 
and dead, suffered to the end that his wound might 
make us alive; let us believe that the Son of God had 
no power to suffer, had it not been for us." And 
again, — "Meanwhile thou hast [the whole doctrine] 
concerning the majesty of Christ, how all things were 
made for him and through him; to whom be honor, 
power, and glory, now and for ever." There is evi- 
dence from his writings, that he was a Hebrew Chris- 
tian. He did not labor to prove the divinity of Christ, 
as he probably would have done, had those to whom 
he wrote, disbelieved it; but he made his assertions, 
as if his sentiments of Christ were generally received 
by Jewish converts, and would not be disputed. (See 
Horseletfs eighth Letter to Priestley.) 

Tertullian lived in the second and third century. 
He wrote against Praxeas. He observes on the sub- 
ject of the Trinity, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet 
one God." Milner represents him in the following 
manner. "He speaks of the Lord Jesus, as both God 
and man, Son of man, and Son of God, and called Jesus 
Christ. He speaks also of the Holy Spirit, the Com- 
forter, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe 
in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He observes 
that this rule of faith had obtained from the beginning 
of the Gospel, antecedent to any former heretics, 
much more to Praxeas, who was of yesterday." If 
this be a fair representation of his ideas, he was clear 
and decisive in his belief of the Trinity. If he was, 
in some respects, unsound in the faith, this would not 
invalidate his testimony respecting the rule of faith, 
which had obtained from the beginning of the gospel; 
nor would it prove him to be incorrect respecting the 
doctrine of the Trinity. 

Clemens Alexandrinus was cotemporary with Ire- 
naeus and Tertullian. Contrasting the authors of 
idolatry with Christ, he observes, "Whereas Jesus 
Christ, who from all eternity was the Word of God, 



244 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

always had a compassionate tenderness for men, and 
at last took their nature upon him, to free them from 
the slavery of demons, to open the eyes of the blind, 
and the ears of the deaf, to guide their paths in the 
way of righteousness, to deliver them from death and 
hell, and to bestow on them everlasting life, and to 
put them into a capacity of living an heavenly life 
here upon earth; and lastly, that God made himself 
man to teach man to be like unto God. — Believe, 
therefore, in one God, who is God and man, and 



receive eternal salvation for a recom 



pense 



»j 



Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was distinguished for 
his natural abilities, for his eloquence, for his fervent 
piety, and for his exertions to promote the cause of 
Christ. He suffered martyrdom in the third century. 
In his writings, he expresses his sentiments respecting 
Jesus Christ. In one of his letters, he writes thus, 
"How shameful must it be for a Christian to be un- 
willing to suffer, when the Master suffered first; and 
that we should be unwilling to suffer for our sins, when 
he who had no sin of his own, suffered for us. The 
Son of God suffered that he might make us the sons 
of God." In this quotation, he calls Christ by the 
scriptural names, Master, and Son of God. If his use 
of these names do not prove what were his particular 
sentiments of Christ's nature and character, what he 
said of his sufferings carries evidence that he believed 
that his death was an expiatory sacrifice. 

Again this Christian father remarks, "What glory! 
what joy! to be admitted to see God, to be honored, 
to partake of the joy of eternal light and salvation 
with Christ the Lord your God." Again he gives 
the same divine name to Christ. "We ought not bv 
a long delay and neglect, to suffer the temples of God 
to remain in captivity, but to labor with all our might 
and quickly to shew our obsequiousness to Christ our 
Judge, our Lord and our God." 

Cyprian, a little before his execution, being inter- 
rogated and threatened by the proconsul, replied, 



RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 245 

; 'My safety and virtue is Christ the Lord, whom I 
desire to serve for ever." In these quotations he 
viewed Christ as a sacrifice for sin; he called him our 
Lord and our God; and he expressed a desire to 
serve him for ever. If he believed Christ's divinity, 
he was consistent in making these expressions. 

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, expressed his ideas 
on the doctrine of the Trinity with clearness and de- 
cision. "The Father, (says he) cannot be separated 
from the Son, as he is the Father; for that name at 
the same time establishes the relation. Neither can 
the Son be separated from the Father, for the word 
Father implies the union; and the Spirit is in their 
hands, because it cannot exist without him, who sends 
it to him who bears it. Thus we understand the in- 
divisible Unity of the Trinity; and we comprehend the 
Trinity in the Unity without any diminution." 

It is not foreign to our purpose to introduce here 
Paul of Samosata, who Avas bishop of Antioch. He 
taught that Christ "was by nature a common man as 
we are." In consequence of this sentiment, and of 
the irregularities of his life, a large council was called 
at Antioch. He "was induced to recant, and gave 
such appearances of sincerity, that Firmilian and the 
council believed him;" and he was suffered to retain 
his bishopric. His dissimulation did not remain long 
concealed. After a few years another council, con- 
sisting of seventy bishops, was convened. "The am- 
biguous Paul" at this time disclosed his sentiments 
respecting Christ. "All the bishops agreed to his 
deposition and exclusion from the Christian church." 
This decision was made in the year 269; and it proves 
that a disbelief of the divinity of Christ was not the 
prevailing opinion of that time; and that it was dis- 
countenanced by the Christian church. 

Felix was the successor of Dionysius of Rome. He 
wrote a letter to Maximus of Alexandria, 'in which 
he speaks thus, probably on account of Paul's heresy.' 
"We believe that our Savior Jesus Christ was born of 



246 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS 

the virgin Mary; we believe that he himself is the 
eternal God, and the Word, and not a man whom God 
hath taken into himself, so as that man should be 
distinct from him: for the Son of God being perfect, 
God was also made perfect man, being incarnate of 
the virgin." 

Origin flourished in the third century. He was 
acknowledged to be a man of ability, learning, piety 
and indefatigable in his labors. Trinitarians and Uni- 
tarians, both have claimed him. Sometimes he 
expressed his ideas concerning the Father, Son, and 
Spirit in language, Avhich entitled him to the ranks of 
Trinitarians. At other times his language naturally 
imported that he was a Unitarian. It is not necessary 
to contend about his sentiments. On whichever side 
he may stand, his opinion will not affect the question. 
If he believed a plurality in the divine nature he will 
add only one to the long list of fathers, who for three 
centuries believed the same. If he held only to an 
allegorical Trinity, as some contend that he did, he 
was one of those, who appeared to adhere more closely 
to his system of philosophy than to express declara- 
tions of scripture. In whichever scale he falls, his 
weight will be less than if he had been generally cor- 
rect in his views of the other parts of Christianity. 
Speaking of Origen, Mosheim says, "I would not be- 
lieve this witness upon his oath, vending as he mani- 
festly does, such flimsy lies." 

This is a brief view of the opinions of the most 
distinguished fathers of the three first centuries con- 
cerning the doctrine of the Trinity, especially con- 
cerning the nature and character of Jesus Christ. It 
appears by their language that they believed he was 
divine; and that they and the church considered those 
heretical, who denied his divinity. This appears to 
be the testimony of the friends of Christianity. Let 
us attend to the testimony of some of its early ene- 
mies, so that by the mouth of both witnesses the 
subject may be well established. 



RESPECTING JE9US CHRIST. 247 

Pliny, it is well known, was a bitter enemy of the 
Christians. In his letter to Trajan, early in the sec- 
ond century, he writes thus: "And this was the 
account, which they gave me of the nature of the 
religion they once had professed, whether it deserves 
the name of crime or error, that they were accustomed 
on a certain day to meet before day light, and to repeat 
among themselves an hymn to Christ, as to a God, and 
to bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of 
not committing any wickedness," &c. This account 
of the practice of Christians was given to Pliny by 
some apostate Christians. This account clearly shews 
that the Christians of that time tendered divine honors 
to Jesus Christ. Their credibility is not invalidated 
by their being apostates. They had been with the 
Christians. They knew their practice; and it appears 
they would have no temptation to make a false state- 
ment on this point. 

Lucian, another enemy of Christianity, belongs to 
the second century. He was remarkable for his sar- 
casm. In his account of Peregrinus he speaks thus 
of Christians: "However, these people adore that 
great Person, who had been crucified in Palestine, as 
being the first who taught men that religion. — Since 
they separated from us, they persevere in rejecting 
the gods of the Grecians, and worshipping that deceiv- 
er, who was crucified." This is another evidence that 
Christians in the second century gave divine honors to 
Jesus Christ. 

Celsus wrote near the close of the second century. 
Infidelity never, perhaps, appeared with greater ma- 
lignity than in this man. A few quotations from him 
will shew what was then understood by Christians 
that Christ pretended to be, and what they understood 
that he really was. "Christ was privately educated, 
and served for hire in Egypt; got acquainted with 
miraculous arts there, returned, and for those miracles, 
declared himself God. Why should you, when an in- 
fant, be carried into Egypt, lest you should be mur- 



248 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, &C 

dered? God should not fear being put to death. You 
say that God was sent to sinners, &c. He had no 
reason to fear any mortal now, after he died, and as 
you say he was a God." These quotations prove 
that Christians in the latter part of the second cen- 
tury believed that Christ made himself God; and that 
they also believed that he was God. 

The testimony of Porphyry is similar to that of 
Celsus. He wrote in the third century. "Men won- 
der now, (said he) that distempers have seized the 
city so many years, iEsculapius and the other gods no 
longer dwelling among them; for since Jesus was hon- 
ored, no one has received any public benefit from the 
gods." Porphyry tells the following story: "A person 
asked Apollo how to make his wife relinquish Chris- 
tianity? It is easier perhaps, replied the oracle, to 
write on water, or to fly into the air, than to reclaim 
her. Leave her in her folly to hymn in a faint mourn- 
ful voice the dead God, who publicly suffered death 
from judges of singular wisdom." 



ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 



"The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," 
Isaiah 53:6. It is important to know the design and 
effects of the sufferings of Jesus Christ. Though the 
Scriptures appear to be full and explicit on this sub- 
ject, there is no inconsiderable difference of opinion 
respecting it. The doctrine of the atonement is of 
the first importance, whether it be viewed in relation 
to the moral condition of man, or in relation to the 
nature and character of the Lord Jesus. 

The Creator made mankind moral agents, and he 
gave them a law for the regulation of their conduct. 
This law required perfect obedience; and it threat- 
ened punishment for every transgression. Whatever 
may be the difference, in respect to the number of 
God's commands in different ages of the world, they 
are of one nature; they require obedience, and they 
threaten punishment for every offence. If, in one 
age of the world, the penalty of the law was ever- 
lasting punishment, it was the same in every age. 

We look over this world, and we find that it is a 
province of divine government; and that it is a rebel- 
lious province. They have violated the law of their 
divine Sovereign; forfeited the reward of righteous- 
ness; and incurred the penal consequences of trans- 
gression. If the law have its natural course, the 
threatened punishment will be inflicted upon every 
transgressor; and the whole race of man will suffer 
the vengeance of God for ever. If the divine law be 
32 



250 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

just and good, its honor would be supported in this 
way by its own provisions. But we learn from the 
general dealings of God with this world, and fre-m his 
revealed word, that mercy is an attribute of his nature; 
that he is benevolent to sinful man; that he dehghteth 
not in the death of sinners. A question naturall) rises 
here; how can God exercise both justice and mercy 
in relation to the same subjects of his government? 
If they be entirely obedient, justice gives them the 
rewards of righteousness. If they transgress, justice 
consigns them to the threatened penalty. In either 
case there is no mercy. The holy and the rebellious 
angels are both under the influence of the justice of 
God. 

When the Creator saw human nature, the work- 
manship of his hand, despoiled of its moral excellence, 
he was disposed to shew mercy, to bestow favor. 
But how this could be done consistently with the 
claims of justice, and with the validity of the divine 
law, could not, probably, be discovered by the greatest 
efforts of created intelligence. If pardon were con- 
ferred upon every transgressor, without any consider- 
ation, the law would have no force; it would impose 
no restraint; it would be merely advisory, but not 
authoritative. Subjects would yield to every impulse 
of their base passions, having no ground to fear any 
pernicious consequences. If part were pardoned 
without any consideration, it would proportionately 
diminish the force of the divine law. Every one 
would hope that he might belong to the favored 
number, and much restraint from transgression would 
be taken off. In either case sin would not appear 
very heinous; nor would it appear to be very offensive 
to God. The divine government would not appear 
with great majesty in the sight of men. Sin would 
abound much more than it does at present; and this 
would not be calculated to prepare subjects for the 
holy services and enjoyments of the heavenly state. 



©N THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 251 

If God should forgive sinners on the ground of their 
suffering a certain term of punishment, it would be on 
the principle of justice or mercy. If it were on the 
principle of justice, it would follow that as sin deserved 
but a limited punishment, it was a finite evil. This 
view of it would comparatively diminish its guilt, and 
it would diminish the dignity of the divine character 
and government, against which it was committed. If 
God should abate his threatened punishment, either 
in degree, or in duration, on the ground of mercy, he 
would manifest, comparatively, less abhorrence of sin; 
he would diminish the dignity of his character and 
the efficacy of his law and authority. If sin be an 
infinite evil and deserves a proportionate punishment, 
a point in duration will never arrive, in which the 
transgressor can claim exemption from further suffer- 

By some it is maintained that repentance is the 
ground, on which pardon is bestowed upon the guilty. 
It is admitted, that under the present economy of 
divine government, sin is forgiven on the condition of 
the repentance of the transgressor. But repentance 
is not the procuring cause of his forgiveness. The 
divine law requires perfect obedience; and it declares 
that "cursed is every one, who continueth not in all 
things, which are written in the book of the law to 
do them." It makes no abatement of its requisitions; 
and it makes no provision for exemption from its 
penalty on any condition whatever. If a transgressor 
repents, his act of penitence comes not within its 
scope. Sorrow for sin makes no satisfaction to the 
violated law. It makes no remuneration to the one 
offended, or injured. Were transgressors pardoned 
solely on the ground of their repentauce, the requisi- 
tions of the law would be diminished; its authority 
and efficacy would be weakened, and proportionate 
encouragement would be given to transgression. But 
it has been maintained that it might be reasonably 
expected that God would forgive on the ground of 



252 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

repentance; and that this has been a prevailing senti- 
ment of the nations of the earth. But this is not fact. 
This conclusion would not be made from any analogy 
whatever. The civil law does not grant pardon to a 
culprit in consequence of his repentance. It requires 
that the penalty be inflicted; so that no one should be 
encouraged to transgress. If a man be injured by his 
fellow creature in his person, property or character, 
will he be satisfied merely with the repentance of the 
offender? Will he not require an equivalent for the 
damages, which he has sustained? A restitution of 
property unjustly taken, and eye for eye, tooth for 
tooth, and blood for blood, were part of the divine 
law, which was established on principles of strict 
justice. Remuneration for injuries, when it is practi- 
cable has always been considered a prerequisite for 
acceptance of repentance. As mankind could make 
no recompense to the divine Sovereign for the offences 
they had offered him, they could not infer that their 
repentance would secure them the forgiveness of their 
God. It is a well known fact, that heathen nations 
generally, if not universally, have adopted the expe- 
dient of sacrifices to appease their offended deities; 
which they would not have done, had they believed 
that repentance only would have rendered them 
propitious. The more dear to them were the victims, 
which they offered, the more pleasing, they imagined, 
would be their sacrifices to their incensed deities. 
From this arose the practice of offering human victims. 
Some offered the fruit of their bodies for the sins of 
their souls. Whether the practice of sacrifice was 
an invention of the human mind in the darkness of 
paganism, or whether it was handed down by tradition 
from the first ages, it is certain, that mankind gener- 
ally have embraced the sentiment, that something 
beside repentance was necessary to make satisfaction 
for sin. 

Nothing occurs under the Providence of God, which 
warrants a belief that repentance will be followed by 



ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 253 

forgiveness. But we witness many things, which 
would naturally lead us to a different conclusion. "For 
when men ruin their fortunes by extravagance, or 
their health by excess in sensual indulgences, it is well 
known that repentance alone doth not remove these 
evil consequences of their follies and excesses. Where- 
fore, if in the present life, repentance is never found 
of itself to remove the temporal evil consequences, 
which God hath connected with vice; also, if men 
themselves being judges, repentance ought not to 
prevent the punishment of crimes injurious to society, 
what reason hath any person, from the constitution 
of things, to expect that repentance of itself will pre- 
vent those penal consequences, which God may have 
thought fit to annex to vice in the life to come. Much 
more, what reason hath any one, from the present 
constitution of things, to expect that repentance and 
reformation will put the sinner into the condition, he 
would have been in, if he had always preserved his 
innocence."* 

It appears evident that a transgressor cannot do 
any thing, which will make satisfaction to the divine 
law, but suffering its penalty. If he repent and re- 
form, and from the present time render a perfect 
obedience to the divine precepts, he does nothing to 
cancel the demands, which stand against him for past 
transgression. Present obedience is but present duty. 
It cannot have a retrospective influence. If one, for 
any given time, could do more than his duty for that 
time, he might acquire a surplus of righteousness, 
which would counterbalance transgressions, and sup- 
ply past deficiencies. But this method is alike con- 
trarient to reason and to revelation. It requires no 
arguments to prove that if a transgressor cannot save 
himself from the penal consequences of sin, he cannot 
save others. Should a created being, of any grade 
whatever on the scale of creation undertake in his 
behalf, what would be the consequence? However 

* Macknight. 



254 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

great his capacity, or his benevolence might be, his 
own obligations to his Creator, should be proportion- 
ate to his degrees of ability. It would be required 
of him, on his own account, according to what he had. 
Suppose he should volunteer his services in behalf of 
this sinful world; that he should suffer in their stead. 
If he were under obligation to his Creator to make 
this sacrifice, he would perform only his own duty; he 
would acquire no surplus of merit, which he could 
transfer to the necessitous. If he were not under 
obligation to make this sacrifice, there is no evidence 
that he would have a right to do it; and if he had, 
there is no evidence that the divine Sovereign would 
accept it in behalf of his rebellious subjects. There 
is no evidence that it would be equivalent, in the sight 
of the law, to the penalty, which it had threatened. 

If God design to shew mercy by forbearing to 
inflict the threatened penalty on transgressors, it ap- 
pears to be necessary that something should be done 
or suffered, which would as fully support the divine 
character, and render the divine law as efficacious, as 
if it had its natural course, and subjected every offender 
to its curse. Were any thing less than this substi- 
tuted, God's abhorrence of sin would appear to be 
diminished; transgression would be encouraged; and 
the law, of course, would cease to produce its full and 
designed effect. How then can rebellious subjects be 
forgiven, and divine authority be supported? We are 
wholly indebted to divine revelation for an answer to 
this question. We are taught by the sacred scrip- 
tures that there is in the divine Nature a plurality, 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that they are manifested 
in the work of redemption; that in respect to office 
the Father holds authority, and the Son and Holy 
Spirit are subordinate; that this method is adopted by 
consent, and without infringement upon the divine pre- 
rogatives of either. In the covenant of redemption 
it was stipulated that the Son should have the hea- 
then for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 



ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 255 

the earth for his possession; that he should see of the 
travail of his soul and be satisfied; and that he should 
be King in Zion. The Son, in view of what he had 
to do, and of what he was to receive, said, "Lo, I 
come, to do thy will, O God." Ever since the apos- 
tasy, the Son has been the medium of intercourse 
between the Father and the human race; and between 
the human race and the Father. He has ever been 
the medium, through which every blessing has been 
conferred upon this fallen world. When the fulness 
of the time (the time marked out by prophecy) 
was come, the Son of God laid aside, concealed, or 
emptied himself of that glory, which he had with the 
Father, was born of a woman; was made flesh, and 
took upon him the form a servant. He was rich, as 
Creator and Proprietor of the world; he was rich in 
respect to his divine glory in heaven; but for the sake 
of a sinful world he became poor; he assumed a con- 
dition of poverty, not having where to lay his head; 
he subjected himself to a state of humiliation. From 
this scriptural representation we see what the Son of 
God did on the part of Divinity for the support of the 
divine law, while pardon was offered to sinners on 
merciful conditions. In this state of abasement the 
divine Son was exposed to the greatest indignity; and 
he actually received the grossest insults, and the most 
contemptuous treatment during his public ministry on 
earth. In the exercise of divine benevolence he came 
into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. 
He came to his own, the people, who had been the 
objects of his special care, support, and direction. 
He addressed them in the most affectionate language. 
He offered them the greatest of blessings, salvation, 
on condition of faith in his name. He appealed to 
his worksj his divine works, to prove his benevolent 
designs, that he was the Son of God; and that he was 
able to bestow what he had offered. But they returned 
him ingratitude and abuse. They not only refused 
the offers of his mercy; but they were inveterate 



256 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

against him. In his works of love they accused him 
of confederacy with Beelzebub. When it was pro- 
posed to them whether they would give preference 
to him, or to a vile malefactor, they with one consent 
gave their voice in favor of the latter. All this 
ignominy and abasement were endured by the 
divine Son. 

In union with him was the Son of man, whose 
nativity was miraculous; whose life was holy, harmless, 
undefiled; who received the Spirit without measure, 
and was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with 
power. So intimate was the union of the Son of God 
with the man, Christ Jesus, that the sufferings of the 
latter upon the cross were a sacrifice of vastly more 
importance than the sufferings of any other man. The 
spotless purity of his nature, the perfection of his 
character, the extraordinary unction of the Holy 
Spirit, which he received, and his union with the Son 
of God, rendered him peculiarly dear to the Father. 
Here we have at one view the constituent part3 of the 
atonement, viz. the humiliation of the Son of God, and 
the sufferings of the Son of man. These parts ought 
to be viewed so far distinctly, that their different 
values may appear; and they ought to be viewed so 
far unitedly, as they are the acts, or sufferings of one 
and the same Mediator. If the Son of God humbled 
himself by union with the Son of man, the Son of man 
was exalted by the same union; and there arose a 
reciprocal influence from this mysterious connexion. 
We must cautiously avoid any hypothesis, or language, 
which seems to blend or confound the two natures of 
Jesus Christ; which seems to attribute a suffering of 
painful sensations to his divinity, or a communication 
of divine properties to his humanity. When it is 
represented that the Word was made flesh, that the 
second Adam was the Lord from heaven, that he, 
who expired upon the cross was the Lord of glory, 
that the Son of man would ascend up where he was 
before, we are not to understand that divinity was 



ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 257 

converted into humanity, or that humanity was con- 
verted into divinity; or that either nature sustained 
the least degree of change. But this manner of 
expression conveys the idea of the intimate connexion 
of his two natures; and during his incarnate state, the 
mention of one involves the other, and by implication, 
the same things may be predicated of each. The 
Scriptures use the same mode of expression, in relation 
to the material and immaterial part of man. They 
predicate of his soul what belongs to his body, and 
they predicate of his body what belongs to his soul. 
(See Ez. 18:20. Matt. 16:17.) 

Whatever degree of dignity and capacity was 
added to the Son of man, by the peculiar union of the 
Son of God, he was still human and limited in all his 
powers. The sufferings, which he endured on the 
cross, were human sufferings; and, by their very nature, 
were limited in degree. But if we add to this, the 
abasement of the divine Son, which is unspeakably 
more important, there will appear to be no deficiency 
in the extent or efficacy of the atonement. 

If these are the constituent parts, or the matter of 
the atonement, there is no ground for the objection, 
that it was made wholly by the man Christ Jesus, and 
that it is limited in its nature and in its value. Let it 
be kept in view that the object of the atonement is to 
support divine authority, and express divine abhorrence 
of sin as fully as if the law had its natural course, and 
mankind suffered its penal consequences. When it is 
brought into the estimate that the Son of God was 
divine; that he was infinitely dear to the Father; that 
in obedience to his will he volutarily sustained the 
deepest degree of humiliation; and that the Son of 
man, who was in the nearest and most endearing con- 
nexion with himself, suffered death of the most igno- 
minious and painful kind, it appears that the law was 
magnified and made honorable, while forgiveness of sin 
was offered to transgressors on merciful conditions. It 
appears that this substitution has expressed as great 
33 



258 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

regard for the law, and as great disapprobation of sin, 
as if the whole race of man had remained under its 
curse, without any provision for their deliverance. 

Why might not the Deity pardon transgressors 
without a sacrifice, as well as pardon them on the 
ground of a sacrifice made principally by himself? It 
is not our province to assign reasons for all the dealings 
of the Most High; nor for the peculiar method, which 
he has adopted in the scheme of redemption. But it 
must be considered that, in the economy of grace, the 
Father holds authority; and the Son is subordinate, 
and subjected to his control; and that this is the 
ground of the covenant, which makes provision for 
the salvation of man. Of course, the Son might do 
that in behalf of the human race, which might be 
acceptable to the Father, while he made them offers 
of mercy. If there were simple unity in the divine 
Nature, it appears that this method, the method of 
sacrifice, would be impracticable. 

Should God grant pardon, in a single instance, with- 
out an atonement, he might, on the same principle, 
forgive others to any extent; and mankind would take 
encouragement to violate the divine law with hope of 
impunity. But this consequence does not follow from 
the atonement, as it is brought to our view in the 
Gospel. Though there is a propitiation made suffi- 
cient for the sins of the whole world, yet no one will 
receive pardon except on the condition of repentance 
and reformation. The wicked can find no encourage- 
ment on this ground, to continue in sin; for while they 
retain their habits of iniquity, they are as fully under 
the penal threatenings of the law as if no sacrifice had 
been made; and they have no interest in pardoning 
mercy, nor can they have, while they persevere in 
transgression. There is as much necessity of holiness 
of heart and life, under the provisions of the Gospel, 
as if righteousness and justification were by the law. 
'The design and work of Jesus were not only to save 
people from the penalty due to their sins, but to save 



ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 259 

them from the practice and guilt of them. For this 
purpose he has authority, by the covenant of redemp- 
tion, to send the Holy Spirit into the world to convince 
of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; to change 
the disposition of the human heart; to sanctify the 
affections and to keep the subjects of his effectual 
operations through faith unto salvation. This appears 
to be necessary, in order to prepare them to receive 
the remission of their sins. For if they were pardoned 
in a state of impenitence, and rebellion against divine 
authority, it would frustrate alike the design of the 
law and of the atonement. 

Inseparably connected with the sacrifice of Christ, 
is his obedience. In his abasement and sufferings, he 
was submissive to the will of the Father. He yielded 
a perfect obedience to the divine law; and proved 
that it was holy, just and good. He gave as full and 
clear evidence in favor of the divine commands, as 
mankind would have done by a perfect observance of 
them. Had the Lord Jesus Christ made only an 
expiation for sin, he would only have saved them from 
suffering; he would not have procured for them the 
reward of righteousness, But he did not leave the 
work of salvation unfinished. He is "the Lord, our 
Righteousness. He is the end of the law for right- 
eousness." He has suffered the penal part, and he 
has obeyed the preceptive part of the law for the 
human race. He has fulfilled the law; and he main- 
tains its dignity and efficacy, while he offers pardon 
and reward to those, who believe on his name. On 
this plan the faith of men is accounted to them for 
righteousness; and God is just, while he justifies them. 
Had any created being, of whatever grade, proposed 
to substitute his obedience for the obedience of the 
human race, so that his righteousness might be 
accounted to them, could he have done it? Could he 
have performed more than his own duty, so that he 
could have had a surplus of righteousness, which 
might be set to their account; and for which they 



260 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 

might receive the reward of everlasting blessedness? 
Were reward granted on this ground, would not the 
law greatly suffer; and would not people set a small 
value upon a righteousness and its reward, which 
might be obtained at so low a rate? 

If we examine the ancient sin offering, and view it 
in connexion with the sufferings and death of Christ, 
we shall obtain light on the subject. The type and 
the antitype unite their influence to lead us into the 
knowledge of a truth the most interesting to a fallen 
world. "The Hebrews had properly but three sorts 
of sacrifices; the burnt offering, which was wholly 
consumed, only the priest had the benefit of the skin, 
Lev. 7:8. The sacrifice for sin, or expiation for him, 
who had fallen into any offence against the law, Lev. 
4. The peace offering, which was offered voluntarily, 
in praise to God, or to ask favors, &c. Lev. 7:31,34." 

The trespass offering was an expiatory sacrifice. 
The law concerning this was explicit. "if a soul sin 
and commit a trespass ngainst the Lord, and lie unto 
his neighbor, in that which was delivered him to keep; 
— or have found that which was lost, and lieth con- 
cerning it, and sweareth falsely, — he shall even restore 
it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more 
thereto; and he shall bring his trespass offering unto 
the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock. — 
And the priest shall make an atonement for him before 
the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of 
all he hath done in trespassing therein." (See Leviti- 
cus 6:) For a sin of a different kind the transgres- 
sor was required to "bring his trespass offering unto 
the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him 
with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord 
for the sin, which he hath done; and the sin which he 
hath done shall be forgiven him," Lev. 19:21,22. 

When Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the 
priest's office, Moses brought a bullock for a sin offer- 
ing; and they laid their hands upon the head of the 
bullock, and he slew it for a sin offering. (See Lev. 8:) 



ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. . 261 

After the death of Aaron's sons, it was an established 
ordinance for him and his successors to offer a sin offer- 
ing once a year for himseif and for the sins of the 
people. He sacrificed a bullock to make atonement 
for his own sins. For the people he took two goats; 
one he sacrificed; and over the other, with his hands 
on its head, he confessed their iniquities, putting them 
upon the head of the goat; and then he sent it, bear- 
ing their sins, into the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:) 
This was the law for making atonement for the sins 
of the priest, and for the sins of the people. 

Had we no further information on this subject than 
what we derive from the law of sacrifices, we could 
discover no wisdom in their institution; no efficacy in 
the blood of beasts; no connexion between the sacri- 
fice of animals and the forgiveness of sin. But the 
apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, gives us 
the information on this subject, which we need. He 
speaks of the legal sacrifices; contrasts them with the 
sacrifice of Christ; and shews the vast superiority of 
the latter. "The law having a shadow of good things 
lo come, and not the very image of the things, can 
never with those sacrifices, which they offered year 
by year continually, make the comers thereunto per- 
fect. For then would they not have ceased to be 
offered; because that the worshippers once purged, 
should have had no more conscience of sins. But in 
those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of 
sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood 
of bulls and of goats should take away sins. But 
Christ being come an high Priest of good things to 
come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not 
made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 
neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his 
own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if 
the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an 
heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the puri- 
fying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of 



262 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 

Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered him- 
self without spot to God, purge your conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God? — Nor yet that 
he should offer himself often, as the high priest enter- 
eth into the holy place every year with blood of oth- 
ers. For then must he often have suffered since the 
foundation of the world, but now once in the end of 
the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of himself." (See Heb. 9: and 10:) 

From a contrast of the Jewish sin offerings with the 
sacrifice of the high priest under the gospel dispen- 
sation, we perceive that the former were but a 
shadow of good things to come; that they were a 
representation of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God; 
and that they derived all their meaning, and all their 
efficacy from this connexion. If the legal sin offerings 
were appointed to be efficacious in procuring remission 
of sin, much more would the sacrifice of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, in which all others terminated, lay a 
foundation for the pardon of sinners. Without this 
allusion, the Hebrew ritual appears as unmeaning and 
unavailing as the superstitious rites of the heathen. 

If the Jews, as a nation, had waxed gross, and 
through their carnal ordinances did not discern spir- 
itual things, there is no reasonable doubt that the 
Jewish saints viewed the trespass offering as an expi- 
atory sacrifice, looking forward to the sacrifice of the 
Lamb of God, and drawing all its import and all its 
value fromtjJiat source. The ancient prophecies shed 
some glimmering rays upon this one, great sacrifice. 
The saints by faith caught the light; and like Abra- 
ham, they saw the day of Christ, and were glad. If, 
at the time the Messiah was upon earth, the principal 
part of the Jewish nation had no idea of a suffering 
Savior, there is no doubt. there were some of that 
nation, who had correct views of the prophecies re- 
lating to his incarnation and death; and had faith in 
the divine promises. Caiphas, the high priest, though 
an enemy of Jesus, appeared to have correct views of 



ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 263 

the design of his sacrifice. "It is Expedient for us," 
said he, "That one man should die for the people, and 
that the whole nation perish not. — He prophesied 
that Jesus should die for that nation. And not for 
that nation only, but that also he should gather 
together in one, the children of God, that were scat- 
tered abroad." 

The scriptures very fully and clearly represent the 
sufferings of Christ to be a sacrifice for sin. "He 
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was 
upon him; and with his stripes we are healed — -The 
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. — For the 
transgression of my people was he stricken. — He bare 
the sin of many. (See Isaiah 53:) This is my blood 
of the new testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins. (Matt. 26:28.) For even the Son of 
man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, 
and to give his life a ranson for many. (Mark 10:45.) 
Being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
demption, that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. 
(Rom. 3?24,25.) Who was delivered for our offences, 
and was raised again for our justification. (Rom. 4:25.) 
For when we w r ere yet without strength, in due time 
Christ died for the ungodly.— -But God commendeth 
his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, 
Christ died for us. Much more then, being now jus- 
tified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath 
through him. For if when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much 
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 
(Rom. 5:6,8,9,10.) For even Christ our passover is 
sacrificed for us. — For I delivered unto you first of all 
that which I also received, how that Christ died for 
our sins according to the scriptures. (1 Cor. 5:7; and 
15:3.) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteous- 
ness of God in him. (2 Cor. 5:21.) In whom we have 
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of 



264 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 

sins. (Col. 1:14.) Who gave himself a ransom for all. 
(1 Tim. 2:6.) Christ was once offered to bear the 
sins of many. (Heb. 9:28.) Forasmuch as ye know 
that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, 
as silver and gold; — but with the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 
(1 Peter, 1:18,19.) He is the propitiation for our sins; 
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
world. — And sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
our sins. (1 John 2:2; and 4:10.) They sung a new 
song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and 
to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and 
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." (Rev. 5:9.) 
These texts and many more of similar import, clearly 
shew that Christ was offered as a sacrifice for sin; and 
that in consequence of his propitiatory offering, trans- 
gressors may receive forgiveness. If these passages 
do not convey this idea, it appears to be impossible to 
find language, which will convey it. 

From this view of the subject, it appears that Jesus 
Christ has made an atonement for sin, and that this is 
the ground, on which forgiveness is offered to trans- 
gressors, on certain merciful conditions. There is a 
manifest distinction between the meritorious, or pro- 
curing cause of pardon, and the terms, on which it 
may be received. Because the law is magnified and 
made honorable by the sufferings and obedience of 
Christ, it does not follow that the law is made void; 
and that it has no further claims upon mankind. Be- 
cause there is a propitiation made for the sins of the 
whole world, it does not follow that all have a claim 
to exemption from punishment; or that all will be 
forgiven. It must be remembered that faith and 
repentance, on the part of the transgressor, are exer- 
cises of mind and heart, which are indispensable in 
order to receive the mercy of p; rdon. The atone- 
ment, on the part of Christ, and faith and repentance, 
on the part of the transgressor, are set forth in the 
Scriptures to be absolutely necessary to salvation. 



ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST* 265 

When one only is mentioned in connexion with for- 
giveness, the other is not excluded, but implied, or 
understood. 

The atonement originated in divine mercy. God 
was angry with the wicked, as sinners. But as the 
workmanship of his hand, as intelligent creatures, 
capable of serving, honoring, and enjoying him for ever, 
he loved them. "Herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us. We love him because he 
first loved us." The Father was not moved, by the 
sacrifice of his Son, to shew mercy. But in the exer- 
cise of his mercy, he adopted this as an expedient, by 
which he could consistently offer pardon to his rebel- 
lious subjects. The Father and Son were of one 
mind on this subject. The Father was willing to give 
up his Son to be a sacrifice for sin; and the Son was 
equally willing to become a sacrifice, so that salvation 
might be offered to sinners. 

If we cannot discover any natural connexion between 
the suffering and obediencfe of one, and the forgiveness 
and reward of another, our want of discernment forms 
no argument against the reality, or wisdom of this 
plan. Many things occur in the natural and moral 
world, for which we cannot account; and whose con- 
nexion we cannot discover. In civil government, 
rulers often suffer in consequence of the vices of their 
subjects; and subjects often receive great blessings in 
consequence of the wise administration of their rulers. 
In families, the prudent conduct of parents proves to 
be a great blessing to their children; and the vicious 
practices of children bring great sufferings upon their 
parents. A similar connexion runs through the vari- 
ous grades of society. In many instances, great natu- 
ral evils, which were intended as such by their authors, 
have resulted in the most beneficial effects. If this 
method is found in the constitution of nature, under 
the administration of the divine Sovereign, why should 
not the same principles be admitted when they are 
found in the scheme of redemption? 
34 



266 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 

The greatness of the atonement, as it has been 
exhibited, is no evidence that it was not appointed 
and adopted by the divine Sovereign, as an expedient 
for the salvation of this sinful world. If it appear to 
any to be disproportionate to the effects, which are 
designed to be produced by it, it arises from ignorance 
of the worth of the soul, and of its bearing upon the 
moral government of God. The human soul, though 
of limited powers, possesses an extensive capacity. 
It is capable of continual progression in knowledge and 
enjoyment. There is no doubt that there will be a 
point in eternity, when it will be equal in its faculties 
to the most exalted angel, who now ministers before 
God's throne; and that it will be then in a state of 
progressive improvement. 

If it were an object unworthy of the Son of God, 
to humble himself, to provide salvation for such an 
individual, then bring to view the first human pair 
with the whole line of their posterity, diverging into 
thousands of branches, extending to thousands of gen- 
erations, and spreading over the breadth of the whole 
earth. View this extensive province, not merely once 
replenished with inhabitants, but peopled thousands 
of times, and removed in succession to another world, 
to receive their everlasting destination. View this 
multitude, which no man can number, and say, is not 
their salvation an object of immense magnitude? Is it 
not an object worthy of God to accomplish? If it 
were not inconsistent with the dignity of the divine 
Being, to form and support such a species of beings 
as mankind, it cannot be inconsistent with his dignity 
to make provision for their reformation, for their for- 
giveness, and for their future blessedness. Besides, 
the atonement of Christ in connexion with the economy 
of redemption, is made known to the angelic host; 
and probably it is disclosed to other systems of intelli- 
gences amidst the immensity of creation; and it may 
serve as a link in the chain of divine government to 
connect and support its various parts. 



ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 267 

When we take into consideration the constituent 
parts of the atonement, its effect upon the moral con- 
dition of man, and upon divine government, it appears 
that no created being was adequate to this work. 

It is presumable that the first offerings and sacri- 
fices were instituted by divine authority. In a history 
so concise as that of Moses, there can be only a 
sketch of the most prominent events. But many 
truths may be discovered by induction. Cain and 
Abel brought their respective offerings unto the Lord. 
It is not improbable that sacrifices were made before 
this time. But these were recorded because they 
were accompanied with peculiar and important cir- 
oumstances. What could have induced these broth- 
ers, if they were not required, to make these offer- 
ings to the Lord? If they presented them as gifts to 
the great Proprietor of all, to avert his displeasure, or 
render him propitious, analogy fails to give it support. 
They then held their property in common; and, of 
course, they did not know by experience what effect 
gifts would produce upon their fellow beings; and 
consequently they would find it difficult to infer what 
effects they would produce in relation to the Creator. 
The circumstance, that Abel was accepted in his 
offering, is an evidence that this rite was of divine 
institution. It can hardly be supposed that fallen 
creatures were left to invent for themselves a method 
of worship, or of sacrifice; and it is equally impro- 
bable that they should invent a method, which would 
be pleasing to the Lord. "By faith Abel offered 
unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." He 
had faith in the divine promise: "the Seed of the 
woman shall bruise the serpent's head." Through his 
sacrifice of beasts he looked forward to the sacrifice 
of the promised Seed. As Abel discerned this con- 
nexion between the sacrifice and the divine promise, 
there is no reasonable doubt that this sacrifice was 
instituted by divine authority. Further, the use of 
flesh was not given to man till after the flood. It is 



268 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 

not probable, therefore, that Abel would hare dared 
to take away the life of animals, even for sacrifice, if 
he had not been commanded by God. The sacrifice 
of animals was a sin offering; and when Abel made 
this offering to the Lord, he was conscious of his guilt; 
he had confidence in the divine promise, and faith in 
that blood, which cleanseth from all sin. If the law 
respecting sacrifices was not given in a formal manner 
till a long period after the apostasy, it, by no means 
follows that they were not of divine institution during 
that interval. The decalogue was not communicated 
in a formal manner till the time of Moses. But there 
is no reasonable doubt that every one of the ten com- 
mands had been made known before; and were as 
binding as they were afterward. 

It is not probable that reason invented the expedient 
of sacrifice for sin. Some have traced it to this origin, 
and others have contended that the doctrine is very 
unreasonable. There appears to be no moral con- 
nexion between the sin of one and the suffering of 
another; nor between the suffering of one and the 
forgiveness of another. If this be true, how have sac- 
rifices generally obtained in every age through the 
world, where revelation has not been enjoyed? There 
is no reasonable doubt that sacrifices have been per- 
petuated by tradition. The nations, which descended 
from Noah, were acquainted with the sacrifices which 
God had instituted. When the revelations of the 
divine will were deposited among one nation, the Jews, 
other nations still retained a knowledge of sacrifices; 
and this knowledge was handed down from one gen- 
eration to another. In addition to this, many heathen 
nations were acquainted with the Jews, and with their 
religion. From them they might keep in remem- 
brance the institution of sacrifices, but with great cor- 
ruptions. It appears much more reasonable that 
heathen sacrifices grew out of Jewish, or patriarchal, 
than that these were engraffed by the divine hand 
upon their's. 



ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 269 

The prevalence of sacrifices among heathen nations 
generally, if not universally, affords evidence that they 
are conscious of guilt; and feel the necessity of an ex- 
piation for sin. If they believed that repentance and 
reformation would secure their forgiveness and restore 
them to the favor of their offended God, they would 
not seek pardon by sacrifice. But as they have ever 
sought it in this way, it follows that unassisted reason 
never taught them that they could obtain pardon 
without this expedient. 

It appears by the laws which were communicated 
to Moses concerning sacrifices, that the trespass offer- 
ing was of an expiatory nature. When people had 
transgressed the commandment of the Lord, they 
were commanded to bring an animal for a trespass 
offering; to lay their hand upon its head and slay it. 
The priest took of the blood with his finger and put 
it upon the horns of the altar; and poured out the 
blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. The priest 
made an atonement for their sin; and it was forgiven 
him. See Lev. 4: 5: 6: 

The ceremony respecting the scape goat is a strik- 
ing representation of the transference of sin. The 
transgressions of the people were confessed over the 
goat; put upon his head; and he bore them away 
into the wilderness. By this method atonement was 
made for the sins of the people. These sacrifices, 
viewed by themselves, appear inefficacious and un- 
meaning. "In those sacrifices there is a remembrance 
again made of sins every year. For it is not possible 
that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
sins," Heb. 10:3,4. But when these sacrifices are 
viewed in connexion with their antitype, they appear 
significant and important. The apostle Paul con- 
trasts the sacrifices under the law with the sacrifice of 
Christ; and shew r s most clearly that the latter, both in 
respect to victim and priest, infinitely exceeded the 
former. From the contrast it appears that the Jew- 
ish sacrifices were types of Christ's sacrifice; and that 



270 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 

from connexion with it, they derived all their import- 
ance. If those symbols, in connexion with the thing 
prefigured, were ordained to make a propitiatory 
sacrifice for sin, it is an unavoidable conclusion that 
the reality itself is adequate to this purpose. 

"He is the propitiation for our sins," &c. 1 John 2: 
2. "The word 'IAair/xoc is no where found in the New 
Testament, but in this passage, and in chap. 4:10. But 
it occurs often in the LXX translation of the Old 
Testament, where it signifies a sacrifice of atonement. 
Thus Lev. 6:6,7. Numb. 5:8. Kg/bs iXaa^s is a ram for 
a sin offering. And Ezek. 44:27, TsqocCpeqEiv iXctc[xov is, 
to offer a sin offering. In considering the death of 
Christ as a sacrifice for sin, John, like the other apos- 
tles, followed his Master, who in the institution of his 
supper, directed his disciples to consider it, as designed 
to bring to their remembrance his blood, shed for the 
many, for the remissions of sins. (Macknight.) 

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation," 
Rom. 3:25. Whether fyu^tov alludes to the cover 
of the ark, or whether it expresses the propitiatory 
sacrifice of Christ, its import is the same, or nearly 
the same, because it was on the cover of the ark, or 
mercy seat, the atonements were accepted, and par- 
dons were dispensed. Christ, as a propitiatory sacri- 
fice, was represented by the mercy seat. He, "by his 
atonement, covered our sins, and bore the curse for 
us; standing between God and the curse of the law for 
our sakes, that God might look on the law through 
Christ, as fulfilled by him on our behalf." 



ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST, 



Who being in the form of God, — was made in the 
likeness of men, Phil. 2:6,7. Not only the divinity, but 
the humanity of Christ has been denied. So mysteri- 
ous is the union of human and divine nature, that at 
an early period of Christianity, even in the apostle's 
time, some attributed to the Savior only one nature. 
One sect believed him to be only human; another 
believed him to be only divine. The same unscrip- 
tural sentiments, with some modifications, have been 
continued till the present day. If there be none in 
the present age, who denies that the Son of God was 
united with any degrees of humanity, there are those, 
who deny that the body of Christ was animated by 
a human soul. As it is designed to exhibit a. general 
view of the nature and character of the Savior, it is 
necessary to consider his humanity. 

Christ is repeatedly called in the sacred Scriptures 
man, and the Son of man. When Peter denied his 
Lord, he called him a man, saying, "I know not the 
man." When the centurion witnessed the crucifixion 
of Jesus, he exclaimed, "Truly this man was the Son 
of God." When Pilate expressed his opinion respect- 
ing the allegations brought against Christ, he said, "I 
find no fault in this m«." The Jews called Christ a 
man. They accused him of blasphemy, saying, "be- 
cause thou being a man, makest thyself God." In 
these and other instances, Christ is called a man by 
persons, who were not under the influence of divine 



272 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

inspiration. They spoke of hira according to appear- 
ance. He appeared to thern to be a man. But we 
are not confined to human appearance for evidence of 
Christ's humanity. The apostle Paul, who was under 
the inspiration of God's Spirit, called Jesus Christ a 
man. Preaching to the Athenians concerning the res- 
urrection, he said, "Because he hath appointed a day 
in the which he will judge the world in righteousness 
by that man, whom he hath ordained." In his epistle 
to the Romans, He contrasts Christ with Adam. He 
speaks of the extensive and deleterious effects of 
Adam's sin; and in view of this, he declares the exten- 
sive and beneficial effects of the obedience of Christ. 
His language is, "As by one maris disobedience many 
were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall 
many be made righteous." The phraseology of this 
passage authorizes a belief that one, in the latter part 
of the text, means one man, which is Jesus Christ. 
"For, since by man came death, by man, (i. e. Christ,) 
came also the resurrection of the dead." "The first 
man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the 
Lord from heaven. There is one God, and one Medi- 
ator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 
Christ repeatedly called himself the Son of man. 
Interrogating his disciples concerning peoples' opinion 
of himself, he said, "Whom do people say that I the 
Son of man am?" This appellation is frequently given 
by the Evangelists to Christ. 

The two angels who were sent to Sodom to destroy 
the place, and to save Lot and his family, had the 
appearance of men. On account of this appearance 
they were called men. But it is presumable that 
they did not actually assume flesh and blood. They 
probably assumed this appearance because they could, 
in this manner, more intelligibly communicate infor- 
mation, and avoid the appearance of miraculous inter- 
position. Christ, before his incarnation, appeared at 
times in the likeness of a man. When he wrestled 
with Jacob, he appeared as a man, and he was called 



ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 273 

a man. The scriptures give this account of the trans- 
action. "Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a 
man with him until the breaking of the day. And 
Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have 
seen God face to face." 

Because angels appeared, at times, in human like- 
ness, and were called men; because Christ, in the 
early ages of the world, appeared in human likeness, 
and was called a man, though neither he nor they 
were encompassed by humanity, it does not follow, 
that Christ, when he abode upon earth, was not in- 
vested with human nature; that he only had the 
appearance of a man, without the reality. He was 
the seed of the woman. He descended from the house 
of David. If his conception was different from the 
ordinary course of nature, this circumstance does not 
affect his humanity. Adam was formed in a manner 
different from any of his posterity. But he was not the 
less human on account of the peculiar mode of his origi- 
nation. Christ was born of Mary. He, undoubtedly, 
*was nourished as other children. He increased in 
stature. He ate and drank. After long abstinence 
from food, "he was an hungred." It cannot be sup- 
posed that this was merely appearance; that there was 
no reality. It seems to be an impeachment of the 
human understanding to attempt to prove that Christ 
had a human body. But it is a greater impeachment 
to deny it. 

Some, who admit that Christ had a human body, 
deny that he had a human soul. As this denial mate- 
rially affects the character of Christ, it is necessary to 
investigate this point. When Christ is called in the 
sacred Scriptures, man and Son of man, there is no 
intimation given that these words are not to be under- 
stood according to their usual and natural import. By 
the word man, is understood a particularly organized 
body, animated by rational powers. A human body, 
which has been deprived of its spirit, cannot with 
propriety be called a man. Nor is it proper to apply 
35 



274 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

this term to a disembodied human spirit. It requires 
both of these substances, matter and spirit, to consti- 
tute a man. If the body of Christ was animated and 
actuated only by the Son of God, there would be no 
propriety in calling him a man; because it was desti- 
tute of an essential, and of the most important part of 
human nature. If the body of Christ was not ani- 
mated by a human soul, it is not true that the Son of 
God was united with humanity. A piece of matter, 
organized like a human body, but destitute of a soul, 
is no more capable of human sensations, than a piece 
of matter differently organized. Consequently it 
could not be considered possessing the essentials of 
human nature. 

The apostle Paul, speaking of Christ, asserts that he 
"was made in the likeness of men." The original word 
(jULoiw^oiTi) translated likeness, signifies more than like- 
ness of appearance. It signifies a real likeness, a like- 
ness of nature. Christ was not made in the real 
likeness of men, if he resembled them only in the or- 
ganization of his body. This would be comparatively 
a small resemblance. The apostle Paul, representing 
Christ undertaking the redemption of man, asserts, that 
Hn all things it behoved him to be made like unto his 
brethren." If he had not a human soul, he was not 
made like his brethren in all things. In the most 
important points he was not made like them. The 
reason the apostle assigned why it behoved Christ to 
be made like his brethren was, "that he might be a 
merciful and faithful high Priest in things pertaining 
to God to make reconciliation ibr the sins of the peo- 
ple. For in that he himself hath suffered, being 
tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." 
The consequence of Christ's being made like his breth- 
ren was, he had human feelings. Christ in his divine 
nature knew what were the feelings, the passions, the 
infirmities and temptations of humanity. But in his 
divine nature he never felt them. In consequence of 
the divine Son's union with human nature he became 



ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 275 

a merciful, as well as a faithful high Priest. He was 
tried by temptation. When he had fasted a long time, 
he felt the sensation of hunger. He had a desire for 
food like any man. In this situation he was tempted, 
when Satan proposed to him to supply himself with 
bread in a miraculous manner. He undouhtedly had 
a desire for the conveniences of life; but higher mo- 
tives counteracted this desire. He was therefore 
subject to temptation, when all the kingdoms of the 
world were offered to him. In view of the sufferings, 
which awaited him, he desired, if it were possible, 
that they might pass from him. He was, therefore, 
tempted to shrink from the tortures of the cross. 
Christ speaking to his disciples concerning their faith- 
fulness to him, said, "Ye are they, which have con- 
tinued with me in my temptations." The apostle to 
the Hebrews says, "We have not an high Priest which 
cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; 
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet with- 
out sin." It is impossible that Christ should be subject 
to temptations as we are; that he should be touched 
with the feeling of our infirmities, if he had not a human 
soul. Separate the mind from the body, and it is hard 
to conceive how the body can have perceptions and 
sensations. Can the eye see and perceive; can the ear 
hear and understand, independently of the intellectual 
faculties? When intelligence is withdrawn, the body has 
no perception nor sensation. If there be a distinction 
between the sensitive and intellectual powers of man, 
there cannot be a proper man without such intellec- 
tual powers. If a humanly organized sensitive body 
may be supposed, it can have only animal sensations; 
it cannot have human feelings and passions, excepting 
on principles of modern philosophy, which makes the 
human soul a necessary result of a particular organ- 
ization of matter.* 

Such a being may have the appearance of a man; 
but it is not true that in all things he is made like unto 

* See Priestley on Matter and Spirit. 



276 ON THE HUMANITY OP CHRIST. 

a man. On the present supposition, the Son of God 
might as well (for aught we know to the contrary) 
have united with a body of any other shape, as with, 
one of human shape. In this union, his feelings and 
sensations would have been only of divine and ani- 
mal nature; but not of human nature. Consequently 
his incarnation would not have brought him into a 
nearer relationship with the human race. It would 
not have subjected him to human temptations; nor 
would it have capacitated him to sympathize with the 
infirmities of humanity, or to succor those, who were 
tempted. One great object of Christ's incarnation 
was, that he might have a personal knowledge of hu- 
man nature; that he might be personally acquainted 
with the infirmities, the temptations and hardships, 
which are common to the human race. The infirmi- 
ties of humanity are no less attached to the mind than 
to the body. If the body of Christ were not ani- 
mated by a human soul, he could not be tempted as 
we are; he could not be conscious of our infirmities; he 
could not feel, as we do, the hardships of human life; 
his incarnation would not capacitate hira to sympa- 
thize with us in our afflictions, nor to succor us when 
we are tempted. 

The account, which the sacred scriptures give of 
Christ, is a decisive proof that he possessed a human 
soul. It is recorded that he increased in wisdom. If 
his body was animated only by a divine Spirit, it was 
not possible that he could increase in wisdom. Divinity 
is unchangeable. The Son of God is called Wisdom. 
This divine attribute is not capable of increase nor 
diminution. His increase of wisdom, therefore, must 
be of human wisdom. 

One object of Christ's incarnation was, to manifest 
that the divine law was holy and just and good; that 
it required no more than human nature was capable 
of performing. If the body of Christ was actuated 
only by divine intelligence, his obedience of the divine 
law would give no evidence that human nature was 



ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 277 

capable of the same obedience. It would be an exam- 
ple which might not be wholly calculated for our imi- 
tation. At least it would not carry evidence with 
itself that we are capable of obedience. To give 
evidence that the law was righteous, and to set an 
example for the human race, it was necessary that he 
should obey in a nature like our's; i. e. a nature com- 
posed of body and soul. 

How far the Son of God sustained the Son of man; 
or whether he afforded him any extraordinary sup- 
port, it is difficult to determine. It is evident that 
Christ, in his human nature, received extraordinary 
communications of the Holy Spirit. When he was 
baptized the Holy Ghost descended upon him. It is 
not to be supposed that the Holy Ghost communi- 
cated the divine Son to the man Christ Jesus. It is 
not the office of the Spirit to send the Son. The 
divine nature of Christ did not need the communica- 
tions of the Holy Spirit. It was complete in itself; 
and was competent to the duties of its office. The 
effusions of the Holy Spirit were shed upon the human 
nature of Christ to capacitate him for the work of 
redemption. As he had more to perform, more to 
endure, than human nature ever performed or endured, 
more copious effusions of the Spirit were made to 
him. The Spirit was not communicated to him by 
measure. The Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to 
be tempted of the devil. Without doubt he granted 
him his sustaining influence. When Christ taught in 
the synagogue, he read a prophetic passage, which 
related to the Messiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is 
upon me." The apostle Peter bore testimony "how 
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost 
and with power." The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, 
speaking of the Son, says, "God, even thy God hath 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel- 
lows." This was the anointing of the Holy Spirit at 
his consecration; and he was anointed in a more extra- 
ordinary degree than any of hjs fellows, the prophets. 



278 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

priests, or kings. The man Christ Jesus received not 
only the aids of the Holy Spirit, but he received the 
ministration of angels. After he was tempted by 
Satan, "angels came and ministered unto him." When 
he was in agony on the mount of Olives, and prayed 
to the Father, that, if he were willing, the cup might 
pass from him, "there appeared an angel unto him 
from heaven strengthening him." 

The influence of the Huly Spirit and the ministra- 
tion of angels are afforded to man. This completes 
the parallel between the man Christ Jesus and the 
human race. He personally knows the assistances 
they receive, and the temptations and hardships which 
they endure; and he is perfectly qualified to make 
a just distinction between human infirmities, and the 
evil propensities of human nature. 

The sacred Scriptures attribute human passions to 
Jesus Christ. He appears to have had human views 
and human feelings, and to be actuated like a holy 
man. At a time he rejoiced in spirit. At other times 
he suffered the pains of grief. The prophet describ- 
ing the low condition of Christ, says, "He is despised 
and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted 
with grief. Surelv he hath borne our griefs and car- 
ried our sorrows." His life corresponded with this 
prophetic description. At the grave of Lazarus he 
wept. He shed tears over impenitent Jerusalem. 
In view of approaching death and of its attending cir- 
cumstances, he was in agony. He said, "Now is my 
soul troubled. My soul is exceedingly sorrowful even 
unto death." He prayed that, if it were possible, he 
might be delivered from the hour of dissolution, which 
just awaited him. He appeared to have the same 
struggle between a sense of duty and the infirmity of 
human nature, which it would be expected any holy 
man would have. When he was on the cross and 
suffering its tortures; when the Father withdrew the 
light of his countenance, and it was the hour of the 
power of darkness, he exclaimed, My God, my God, 



ON THE HUMANITY OP CHRIST. 279 

why hast thou forsaken me? This is not the language 
of divinity. This is the language of suffering humanity. 

At times Jesus Christ manifested anger. When 
the Pharisees watched him whether he would heal 
on the Sabbath-day, "he looked round about on them 
with anger.'''' When Jesus went up to Jerusalem and 
saw that the temple was made a place of traffic, he 
manifested a zeal for the honor of his Father's house. 
He expressed indignation when he used the scourge, 
poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the 
tables. 

The Savior manifested a love, which had every 
appearance of human love. When the rich young 
man addressed him in terms of respect; appeared 
polished in his manners and regular in his life, Jesus 
beholding him loved him. He appears to have had a 
peculiar affection for the family of Mary. John was 
the disciple, whom Jesus loved. 

When Christ is said to be angry, to be grieved; to 
rejoice; to exercise love; to suffer pain, there is no 
appearance that these affections are to be understood 
figuratively. When he manifested these affections to 
the senses, he manifested them really, not figuratively. 
If a human soul was not united with the body of Jesus, 
it is impossible that he should have had these affec- 
tions. If his body was animated only by the divine 
Son, it is impossible that he should be tempted as we 
are, for God is not tempted with evil; and it is absurd 
to suppose that a mere body is subject to temptation. 

There is a manifest propriety that the Mediator 
between God and man should possess divine and 
human nature. By this union he would feel an interest 
in the rights of both parties. While he vindicated 
the rights of God's throne, he would have compassion 
on the infirmities of humanity. Had he been only 
divine, the sinful race of man might, perhaps, have 
accused him of partiality to the cause of his Father, 
while he neglected to plead their cause. Had he 
been only human, he might have neglected divine 



280 ON THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 

rights; and have exercised an undue partiality for his 
brethren. But by possessing both natures, he will 
exhibit evidence that he pays just regard to both 
parties; and of course, every mouth will finally be 
stopped before God. 

The human mind cannot comprehend the union 
which subsists between the Son of man and the Son 
of God. Neither can it comprehend the union be- 
tween soul and body. It does not understand how 
matter affects spirit, and how spirit affects matter. It 
does not understand how the divine Spirit sustains and 
moves the inanimate world; nor does it understand 
how he supports and gives operation to the human 
soul and body. These are acknowledged truths. 
They are not denied, because they cannot be com- 
prehended. If the divine Mind pervades all things; 
and moves all things, it is not incredible that he should 
have a peculiar residence and efficiency in the man 
Jesus Christ. 

It is written, "The Word was made flesh." The 
apostle Peter, speaking of the patriarch David said, 
"God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit 
of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up 
Christ to sit on his throne." The apostle Paul saith, 
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was 
made of the seed of David according to the fleshy 
"When he cometh into the world he saith, sacrifice 
and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou 
prepared me." Because the term flesh is applied to 
Christ; because a body was prepared for him; it does 
not follow that his flesh was not animated by a human 
"soul. It is well known that in the sacred Scriptures, 
as well as in other writings, that a figure is used, 
which puts a part for the whole. The word flesh is 
often used in the Bible to signify not only the human 
body, but the whole person. "God looked upon the 
earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had 
corrupted his way upon the earth." It cannot be 
supposed that human bodies are here spoken of to the 



ON THE HUMANITY OP CHRIST. 281 

exclusion of human souls. It is not supposed that the 
bodies only corrupted his ways and the souls kept 
themselves pure. The Psalmist, desiring to see the 
power and glory of God, saith, "My flesh longeth for 
thee." It is not rational to suppose that the word 
flesh in this passage signifies his material, to the exclu- 
sion of his spiritual part. There are many other 
passages in the sacred Scriptures, too numerous to be 
quoted, in which the word flesh signifies the whole 
person; and in those passages it is the most natural 
signification of the word. Consequently, it may signify 
a complete human person when it is applied to Christ. 
The Word was made flesh, i. e. he was made in the 
likeness of men. 

There is such a union between the Son of God and 
the Son of man, that some of the qualities of each are, 
in the Scriptures, applied to the other. "The second 
man is the Lord from heaven." In this passage, a 
divine name is given to the Son of man. Thou wilt 
not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption. The divine title, Holy 
One, was applied to the body of Christ. 

So nearly united were the humanity and divinity of 
Christ, that he sometimes spoke of one nature, some- 
times of the other. If there be so intimate a union 
between Christ and believers, that they are called 
members of his body, it is not incredible that the Son 
of God should have a peculiarly intimate union with 
the Son of man. 



36 



A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 



After examining generally the evidences of the sacred 
scriptures in favor of the existence of God, the divine 
unity and the divine plurality; and after examining 
particularly their evidences in favor of the divinity of 
the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is 
suitable to bring these evidences into one view that 
we may feel their united force. Every source of 
evidence affords a rich supply of arguments in proof 
ot the subject. But when all the sources are opened, 
and their united strength is made to bear upon oppos- 
ing systems, it is hoped they will carry conviction, 
where a single argument, or a single source of evidence 
would fail. 

The existence of God, is written as with a sunbeam 
on all the works of nature. "The invisible things of 
him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made, even 
his eternal power and Godhead." The unity of God 
is argued from the correspondence between the dif- 
ferent parts of the world; from the uniformity of 
divine government; from the coincidence of the dif- 
ferent parts of the sacred scriptures; and from the 
sameness of Spirit, which runs through the whole 
system. The unity of Israel's God was expressly 
taught by divine authority in contradistinction to the 
multiplicity of the gods of the heathen. Plurality in 



SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES, &C. 283 

the divine nature is deducible from the divine name of 
plural number; from the specification of distinctions in 
the divine nature; and from different and significant 
names applied to the Deity. 

Revelation has not left us with only these general 
ideas of God. While it exhibits the unity of the di- 
vine essence, it exhibits certain distinctions, which 
constitute a ground of intercourse and of reciprocal 
compact. 

The Father occupies the first place in the work of 
redemption. He possesses no priority of existence, 
nor superiority of nature, compared with the Son and 
Spirit. But according to the methodical arrangement 
of infinite Wisdom, there is order of offices in the dis- 
pensation of grace. By reciprocal consent the Father 
holds the first office; the first in respect to order and 
number. The authority which the Father had to 
send the Son was by mutual consent. The universal 
authority which the Son had in heaven and in earth, 
after his resurrection, was also by mutual consent. 
The terms, Father and God, are often used in the 
scriptures as synonymous. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is not incidentally ex- 
pressed or alluded to in the scriptures. It is not con- 
fined to some solitary passage or page, as if it were 
interpolated, or casually dropped from the penman of 
the sacred oracles. It is a prominent doctrine. 
Divine plurality appears in the first sentence of divine 
inspiration. It was gradually unfolded in ancient times. 
After the advent of Christ it was revealed with greater 
clearness and distinctness. In short, it is a doctrine 
interwoven through the whole system of revelation. 

The divinity of Christ is inferred from a multiplicity 
of evidences, each of which appears to be conclusive. 
Divine names are given to him. The most exalted 
names of God, names, significant of his existence are 
applied to him. Some divine names, it is true, are 
given tocreatures. But all divine names are not given to 
any creature. But the highest divine names are given 



284 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

to Christ. When they are applied to creatures, they 
are applied with such restrictions and qualifications, 
and with such evident relation to creatures, that they 
are not calculated to lead people into the belief that 
they are divine. When they are applied to Christ, 
they are applied without limitation. No intimation is 
given that these names are not literally applied. If 
Christ had not been divine, there is no doubt that some 
qualification or restriction would have been added to 
his titles to prevent people, naturally prone to idola- 
try, from giving him divine worship. As no such 
restriction is annexed to the divine titles of Christ, 
the scriptures are sadly calculated to mislead, if he be 
not divine. It seems that the frequent application of 
divine names, even the highest divine names to Jesus 
Christ, would prevent all objection to his divinity. If 
there were but one source of evidence to prove his 
Deity, if but one characteristic feature of divinity were 
attributed to him, there might be, perhaps, some 
ground to doubt his divinity. Such explanation might 
be given by deniers of his divinity, which would seem 
to take from him his divine claims. 

But the divinity of Christ does not rest on one 
source of evidence. He has more than one divine 
feature. What is a name, a high name, unless it be 
appropriately given? What is a divine name, unless it 
designate divine nature? The same scriptures, which 
give divine titles to Christ, also ascribe to him divine 
attributes. Duration, knowledge, wisdom, presence, 
and power, are attributed to Christ in no less degree 
than to the Father. Sometimes a single divine attri- 
bute is hyperbolically given to a creature, not to 
designate divine nature, but to express some extraor- 
dinary quality. But this bears no proportion to the 
literal application of the whole assemblage of divine 
qualities to Jesus Christ. If divine attributes had been 
given to Christ only in a figurative sense, it would 
have been necessary that some notice should be given 
of the figurative allusion. But as no such notice was 



OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 285 

given; as no limitations of number or degree were 
made to those divine attributes, which were ascribed 
to Christ, it is a natural inference that his nature is 
divine. If any should not admit that divine titles ap- 
plied to Christ proved him to be divine, it seems that 
the additional evidence of divine attributes applied to 
him, would decide the question. 

In addition to these evidences, the same works are 
attributed to Christ, which are attributed to God. 
He is the Author of creation. He was in concert 
with the Father and Spirit, when it was said, "Let us 
make man." He performed miracles by his own 
power and authority. He will raise the dead and 
judge the world. Greater works are not attributed 
to the Father than those, which are attributed to the 
Son. If the divinity of the Father is argued from his 
works, it is equally conclusive, to infer Christ's divinity 
from his works. If Christ was merely an instrument 
in the hand of the Father in the work of creation, 
and in the performance of miracles; and wrought only 
by the communication of his power, it would not be 
proper to attribute these works to Christ, excepting 
under certain restrictions. But as no such restrictions 
are applied to him, it is a fair conclusion that he 
wrought by his own power. It is impossible that 
almighty power should be transferred from God the 
Father to a creature; and it is also impossible that 
the operation of almighty power should be the act of 
a creature. If Christ be properly the Author of the 
works of creation and of miracles, he of course pos- 
sesses divine power. If he be not properly the Author 
of the world and of miracles, the Scriptures are cal- 
culated to mislead, and they have misled the human 
mind. 

The sacred Scriptures represent the knowledge and 
wisdom of the Son in as high degree as they represent 
the knowledge and wisdom of the Father. By way 
of eminence, the Son is called wisdom. By his works 
and dispensations he has proved that this name is 



286 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

significant and appropriate. When he was upon 
earth, he had an intuitive view of transactions where 
his bodily eye could not penetrate. He knew what 
was in man. When his enemies meditated evil against 
him, he knew their thoughts. "No one knoweth the 
Father but the Son." This declaration implies that 
the Son had a knowledge of the Father. It requires 
an unlimited capacity to have knowledge of an infinite 
subject. 

There is evidence from Scripture that the presence 
of the Son is as extensive as the works of creation. 
He represented himself to be at the same time in 
heaven and on earth. To his disciples, who were 
going into different parts of the world he said, "Lo, I 
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
His office as Intercessor implies that he is present with 
all his suppliants and hears their petitions. 

The divine goodness of the Son is inferred from his 
works before his incarnation; from his dispensations on 
earth; from his official acts, which he will perform at 
the last day; and from his system of religion, whose 
tendency is of the most salutary nature. If the works, 
the dispensations and the religion of God prove his 
divine goodness, the same, being the works of the Son, 
prove with equal decision his divine goodness. If it 
was an act of goodness in the Father to send his Son 
into the world to redeem mankind, it was no less 
goodness in the Son to come into the world for this 
purpose. 

The sacred Scriptures attribute no less authority 
to Christ than to the Father. He has authority over 
his ambassadors. He has authority over his church. 
He has authority to forgive sins. He has authority 
to judge the world and dispense retribution. He has 
all authority in heaven and in earth; all authority, 
which is essential to the office of Redeemer. 

The Son is entitled to no less honor than the Father. 
This is inferred from the worship he has received. 
Immediately after he came into the world, wise men 



OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 287 

went and worshipped him. The divine Command 
was, "Let all the angels of God worship him." His 
disciples and others worshipped him; and he forbade 
them not. His own language was "that all men should 
honor the Son- even as they honor the Father." If 
he had not been entitled to divine worship, he would 
not have required it; nor would he have countenanced 
it when it was offered him. 

These evidences unite their force to prove the 
divinity of Christ. There are as great evidences in 
favor of the divinity of the Son, as there are in favor 
of the divinity of the Father. If these evidences do 
not prove the divinity of the former, neither do they 
prove the divinity of the latter. If we ask for more 
evidence, than the Scriptures afford, to prove the 
divinity of Christ, we must, to be consistent, ask for 
more evidence of the existence of God; and of the 
infinitude of his attributes. If the testimony of Scrip- 
ture on this subject can be explained away, or be 
made to signify any thing or nothing, the testimony of 
Scripture on other subjects can be explained away, or 
be perverted with equal ease. If the cloud of evi- 
dences, which the Bible offers to prove the divinity 
of the Son, does not prove it, it is impossible to name 
evidence or evidences, which will prove it. 

Each evidence, which has been adduced in favor 
of Christ's divinity, appears to be conclusive. But 
they appear with increased strength, when they are 
viewed together. Like the pillars of an edifice stand- 
ing individually on their own basis, they stand more 
firm by their connexion. 

The sacred Scriptures were designed to enlighten, 
not to confound the human understanding. They were 
designed to exhibit the divine nature and character; 
and the nature and condition of man. If the Scrip- 
tures take the characteristic traits of divinity and 
apply them, in all their extent, to humanity, they con- 
found the Creator with the creature. They darken 
the human mind. They lead mankind directly int© 



288 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

idolatry. When the magicians copied with great 
precision the miracles, which God wrought bj the hand 
of Moses, God saw fit to give a visible superiority to his 
own works, lest people should give that honor to the 
magicians, which was due only to himself. If Christ 
be a mere creature, and God applied so many divine 
properties to him, and did not manifest a decided 
superiority of himself, it might well be expected that 
people would esteem and honor him even as they 
esteemed and honored the Father. As the Scriptures 
attribute as great excellence of nature and as great 
dignity of character to the Son as to the Father, it is 
a just inference, that he is divine and is entitled to 
equal love and veneration. Those passages of Scrip- 
ture, which represent Christ to be inferior to the 
Father, cannot be reconciled with those, which rep- 
resent hirn to be equal with God, without admitting 
that he has two natures of unequal excellence; and 
that the former class of texts are applied to his infe- 
rior, and the latter class to his superior nature. If it 
be admitted that Christ has two natures, it is natural 
to expect that the Scriptures would sometimes speak 
of one nature; sometimes of the other; and that some- 
times they would speak of him in both natures. As 
there are two classes of texts applied to Christ, one 
of which imports an inferior and the other a superior 
nature, there is the highest evidence that he possesses 
two natures. As these two classes designate human 
and divine nature, it follows that Jesus Christ is both 
human and divine. 

If we contrast Jesus Christ with the most illustrious 
personages, that ever appeared on earth, personages, 
who by divine communications performed miracles 
and exhibited the most distinguished traits of character, 
we shall find an infinite superiority on the side of 
Christ; and we shall find an argument in favor of his 
divinity. "One reflection, which I beg you to make 
in finishing this part of my discourse, is that, if only 
one extraordinary and divine trait were to be found 



OP THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 289 

here in the course of a long life, we might be inclined 
to believe that it sometimes pleaseth the Lord, to 
allow his glory and his power to shine forth in his 
servants. Thus, Enoch was carried up, Moses ap- 
peared transfigured on the holy mountain, Elijah was 
raised up to heaven in a fiery chariot, John the Bap- 
tist was foretold. But, besides that these were indi- 
vidual circumstances, and that the language of those 
miraculous men and of their disciples, with respect to 
the divinity and to themselves, left no room for super- 
stition and mistake: here, it is an assemblage of 
wonders, which all, or even taken separately, would 
have been sufficient to deceive the credulity of men: 
here, all the different traits, dispersed among all these 
extraordinary men, who had been considered almost 
as gods upon the earth, are collected together in Jesus 
Christ, but in a manner a thousand times more glori- 
ous and more divine. He prophesies, but more loftily, 
and with more striking characters, than John the 
Baptist: he appears transfigured in the holy mount, 
but surrounded with more glory than Moses: he 
ascends to heaven, but with more marks of power 
and majesty than Elijah: he penetrates into the 
future, but with more accuracy and clearness than all 
the prophets: he is produced, not only from a barren 
womb like Samuel, but likewise by a pure and innocent 
virgin: what shall I say? And not only he does not 
undeceive men by certain and precise expressions upon 
his origin as purely human; but his sole language with 
respect to his equality to the Most High; but the sole 
doctrine of his disciples, who tell us that he was in 
the bosom of God from all eternity, and that all hath 
been made through him, who call him their Lord and 
their God, who inform us that he is all in all things, 
would justify the error of those who worship him, 
had even his life been, in other respects, an ordinary 
one, and similar to that of other men."* 

* Massillon. 

37 



290 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

The only way, by which we know one class of beings 
from another, is by their respective peculiarities. 
Angels are distinguished from men by their disem- 
bodied state; by their superiority of capacity; and by 
their difference of employment. The divine Spirit is 
distinguished from angels and men by the peculiarities 
of his nature and the peculiarities of his works. If 
they, like him, be spirits, he possesses qualities infi- 
nitely superior to theirs; and he performs works 
infinitely beyond the limits of their capacities. If we 
find a character described in the sacred Scriptures, 
which does not rank with angels or men, but possesses 
all the peculiarities of divinity, it is agreeable to the 
rules of classification to call him divine. The Scrip- 
tures attribute all divine properties to Jesus Christ; 
and they must be perverted or rejected, if the conclu- 
sion that he is divine be denied. 

Besides the Father and the Son, the sacred Scrip- 
tures exhibit another character, to which they attri- 
bute divine peculiarities. To the Holy Spirit they 
ascribe divine attributes; divine works; divine hon- 
ors; they give him a distinct character, and they rep- 
resent him acting in a distinct office; and bearing a 
certain relationship to the Father and Son. If the 
Holy Spirit be no more than the operation of the 
Father, it is hard to conceive why the Scriptures 
should give it significant and appropriate names; give 
it divine qualities, works and honors; and declare it to 
be more criminal to sin against it, than to sin against 
the Father or the Son. If the Holy Spirit be not 
divine; if he be not, in a certain sense, distinct from, 
as well as united to the Father and the Son, the 
Scriptures cannot be understood according to the most 
natural import of words. 

Should we, in reading the history of any particular 
country, find three distinct characters, who had been 
employed in laying the foundation of a nation; and at 
a critical juncture, had, by their united exertions saved 
it from ruin; should we find human qualities attrib- 



OP THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 291 

uted to them; and discover them to be authors of 
achievements, peculiar to men, we should naturally 
conclude, without labored arguments, that these were 
the authors of the same work; that they were three; 
and that these three were human. In the history of 
creation, and in the history of redemption, three dis- 
tinct characters are brought to view. Each is repre- 
sented with divine peculiarities; and exercising divine 
prerogatives. By analogy of reasoning it is a fair con- 
clusion that these are three; and that they are of 
divine nature. If analogy ceases here, and does not 
prove that these three are one, we feel no need of 
analogy. The Scriptures are decisive on this point. 
They expressly declare that there is but one only 
living and true God. The first command of Jehovah 
is, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If 
the sacred Scriptures present to our view three dis- 
tinct characters with divine peculiarities, and at the 
same time expressly assert that there is but one God, 
what shall be done with this seeming contrariety? 
Shall we reject the doctrine of the Trinity because 
we cannot clearly reconcile it with the divine unity? 
Why may we not as well reject the doctrine of the 
divine unity because we cannot reconcile it with the 
doctrine of the Trinity? Why may we not, on the 
same principle, reject both doctrines because we can- 
not reconcile them? 

Our inability to comprehend a subject is not a con- 
clusive, evidence against its truth. Our inability to 
reconcile two propositions does not prove that they 
are not reconcilable; nor does it prove that both, or 
either of them, are untrue. If we had a perfect 
knowledge of the divine nature, we might say what 
could be, or what could not be predicated of it. But 
we are not competent to make a decision of this kind. 
Propositions, which in terms are contradictory, carry 
on the face of them their own falsity. Propositions, 
which are not contradictory and are not self-evident 
must be proved to be true or false by extraneous evi- 



292 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

dence. The doctrine of the Trinity is not self-evident. 
It never has been intuitively perceived; nor has it been 
discovered merely by the power of reason. It is a 
doctrine of revelation. If it be substantiated from this 
source it stands. If it be not substantiated from this 
source, it falls. Revelation represents the Father to be 
divine; the Son to be divine; the Holy Spirit to be 
divine; and it represents only one God. These rep- 
resentations are not, in terms, a contradiction. We 
may, upon divine authority, safely believe both the 
plurality and the unity of God. 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

The union of divine and human nature is a doctrine, 
which appears to be taught in the Scriptures. It is 
a doctrine, which, it is presumed, was never invented 
by reason; and, it is presumed, will never fall entirely 
within the compass of a finite understanding. But the 
unsearchable nature of the doctrine affords not a 
shadow of proof against its truth. If such a union be 
contradictory, or absurd, it is presumed that it is not 
revealed in the Scriptures. It cannot be, that the 
Author of human reason requires a belief of that, 
which contradicts the conclusions of that power of the 
mind. It is the province of reason to decide, what is 
revealed; but it is not the province of reason to fathom 
all revealed truth. Reason teaches, that a system of 
religion, which embraces the infinite Spirit and an 
eternal state of existence, is not within the bounds of 
finite comprehension. 

It appears to be not unreasonable, nor unphilosoph- 
ical to suppose that divinity was united with humanity. 
In every human action, there is a co-operation of 
divine power. Without the supporting influence of 
the Deity, creatures can neither think nor move. 
This concurrence of divine and human operation is as 
far beyond our comprehension as the union of the 
Son of God with the Son of man. Man is composed 



OP THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 293 

of matter and spirit. Rational, sensitive, and corpo- 
real powers unite in one person. It appears to be no 
more contradictory, that divine power should be united 
with these, than that they should be united with each 
other. 

There was a more special connexion between divine 
operation and those holy men of old, who spoke and 
wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There 
is another and different operation of divine power 
upon men, in causing them to be born again. The 
Holy Spirit dwells in those, who have been subjects of 
this divine influence. "Know ye not that ye are the 
temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in 
you?" 1 Cor. 3:16. In these cases, there is a certain 
connexion of divinity with humanity; and in each case 
divine operation is different. If it be not unphilosoph- 
ical to admit this connexion of divinity and human 
nature, it appears to be not unphilosophical to admit 
that connexion, which the Scriptures represent to 
subsist between the Son of man and the Son of God. 
It is no more difficult to conceive this connexion than 
it is to conceive the immeasurable gift of the Spirit, or 
divine fulness 'dwelling in the man, Christ Jesus. If 
the former hypothesis be unphilosophical, so is the 
latter. 

It is objected by some that it is not agreeable to 
sound philosophy to suppose that divine and human 
nature should so unite that they constitute but one 
person. We shall not contend for the phrase, one 
person, nor for the propriety of it, when applied to 
Jesus Christ. Viewed in his human and divine nature, 
he is different from all other beings; and it is obvious 
that many of those terms and phrases, which are ap- 
propriate to them, cannot be applied with the same 
propriety to him. One class of texts proves his 
humanity; another as evidently proves his divinity; 
and from both classes is inferred the union of both 
natures. 



294 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

1. To this it is objected that "it divides the one 
Supreme Being, or essence. 

2. It ascribes to one part of the indivisible and 
immutable essence, a property, or properties, which 
the others do not possess. 

3. It ascribes two natures to the person of Christ, 
each of which separately considered, possesses all the 
properties necessary to constitute personality. 

4. It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human 
nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else 
supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, 
suffering, and death." (See Purveys Humble Attempt, 
&c p. 87.) 

These consequences, it is apprehended, do not 
follow from the admission of the doctrine under con* 
sideration. Spirit is not, like matter, divisible. When 
we speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we do not 
mean three distinct and separate beings. If any infer 
from the doctrine, this distinction in the divine nature, 
the inference is their own, not ours. We do not 
attempt to explain the mode, in which the Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit subsist. But we maintain, that 
we find it in the Scriptures, as we apprehend, that 
the Father is divine; that the Son is divine; that the 
Holy Spirit is divine; and that there is but one God. 

It is admitted that the subject is mysterious; but it 
no more implies a division of divine nature, than the 
omnipresence of God. Those, who believe his exist- 
ence, believe this is an attribute of his nature. They 
believe that he is in this world, and exercises his 
power, wisdom, and goodness. They believe that he 
is at the same time in heaven, exercising his power, 
wisdom, and goodness. But they do not believe there 
are two Gods; nor do they believe that divine nature 
is divided; nor do we infer this from their belief. We 
believe that the Father was in heaven exercising 
divine attributes, while the Son was upon earth exer- 
cising divine attributes. If a division of divine nature 
can be justly inferred from our belief, with equal 



OF THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 295 

justice can it be inferred from theirs. Let us, for a 
moment, apply their argument to the omnipresence of 
God. The divine Being is present in this world either 
wholly, or in part. If he be wholly in this world, 
then he is not in heaven. If he be partly in this world 
and partly in heaven, then the divine Spirit is divisible 
and is composed of parts. Again, these parts are 
either finite, or infinite. If they be finite, it follows 
that two finite parts make one infinite whole. If they 
be infinite, it follows that there are two infinities in 
the divine nature. These inferences as naturally 
follow from their belief, as from ours. As they have 
drawn these conclusions themselves, it belongs to 
them, not to us, to dispose of them. 

The second inference of the objector is founded on 
the first, as far as it relates to the divisibility of the 
divine nature; and we would apply the same observa- 
tions. But we do not apply properties to the Father, 
which are not applied to the Son, nor do we apply 
properties to the Son, which are not applied to the 
Father and the Holy Spirit. By properties we under- 
stand qualities of a nature. The same qualities are 
attributed by the inspired writers to the Son, which 
are attributed to the Father. Still there is something 
peculiar to each. What this something is, which is 
the ground of their distinction is not revealed. But 
it appears that as the Son doeth nothing without the 
Father, so the Father doeth nothing without the 
Son; and that they, with the Holy Spirit, are united 
in their operation in every work. 

We shall not attempt to explain the union of the 
Son of God with the Son of man. We cannot explain 
the union of body and soul. It is not surprising then 
that we cannot explain the union of divine and human 
nature. This union appears to be taught in the Scrip- 
tures; and it appears no more like absurdity and con- 
tradiction than the union of divine fulness with the 
man Christ Jesus. Are we charged with dividing the 
divine Essence, because we maintain that the Son of 
God was united with the Son of man? The charge 



296 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

lies with equal weight against those, who maintain 
that divine fulness, or the immeasurable gift of the 
Spirit dwelt in Christ. The fulness of the Godhead, 
or divinity embraces all the divine perfections. If all 
divine perfections dwelt in Christ when he was upon 
earth, we retort the question upon the objector, 
where is the fulness of perfection of the Father? If 
the Father, in the plenitude of his perfections, dwelt 
in the man Christ Jesus on earth, how could he be, at 
the same time, in heaven without a division of his 
essence? If all the fulness of the Godhead was 
united with the human nature of Jesus, it follows, 
according to the argument of the objector, that 
the person of divinity is united to the person of 
humanity; and of course, "the Lord Jesus Christ con- 
sists of two persons, or else two persons are one per- 
son, or united in one." 

To obviate this conclusion, recourse has been had 
to the apostle's prayer for the Ephesians, in which he 
requests that they "might be filled with all the fulness 
of God;" Eph. 3:19. From this it is inferred that the 
fulness of the Godhead, which dwelt in Christ, does 
not differ in its nature from that divine fulness, which 
is communicated to saints; that it means no more than 
that divine blessings or influences were abundantly 
bestowed upon him. But these passages do not appear 
to be parallel. John testifies that "of his (i. e. Christ's) 
fulness, have all we received." From this it appears 
that it was the same thing to receive the fulness of 
Christ, and the fulness of God. But what saint, 
prophet, or apostle had a divine fulness, which they 
could impart to others? The primitive Christians 
occasionally received those extraordinary influences of 
the Spirit, which were called the fulness of Christ or 
God. But it is not said, and it does not appear that 
this fulness was permanent in them. There is evi- 
dence to the contrary. The fulness of God, of which 
they were partakers, was, therefore, occasional and 
temporary. But in Christ all the fulness of the God- 



OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 29T 

head (divinity) dwelleth, HUTofaei. The preposition 
connected with this verb adds force to its meaning. 
It therefore signifies, not to occupy occasionally, but 
to dwell permanently. This divine fulness not only 
dwelt permanently in Christ, but it dwelt in him 
bodily; I e. truly and substantially. We find that 
holy men have resembled, in a degree, almost all the 
features of Christ's character. But in every trait of 
his character there is a visible superiority, which dis- 
tinguishes divinity from humanity. Another conse- 
quence, which has been drawn from the doctrine of 
the union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ 
is, "It ascribes all acts and sufferings to the human 
nature, that can be ascribed to the Mediator, or else 
supposes the immutable Essence capable of change, 
suffering and death." This consequence does not 
appear to follow from the doctrine. It is not admitted 
that the sufferings of the humanity of Christ wholly 
constituted the atonement It is maintained that the 
divine Son, if he did not suffer pain, suffered ignominy. 
He suffered a state of humiliation. He suffered the 
condition of a servant, the reproach of the cross. 
It is maintained that this suffering gave value, gave 
efficacy to the sacrifice, which was offered upon the 
cross. The Son of God could suffer this without sus- 
taining any change in his nature. The perfections of 
divinity were not diminished by union with humanity. 
The Son of God was no less entitled to divine honors, 
when he was reviled upon the cross, than when he 
was seated on the right hand of the Father. We do 
not hold that merely the human nature of Christ 
mediates between God and man. We maintain that 
in both natures he acts in the office of Mediator. 
This does not involve the inconsistency of mediating 
between himself and the human race; because he 
mediates between the Father and them, and the 
Father is not the Son. 

To the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity 
it is objected, "He would not say, himself could not 
38 



298 SUMMARY VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES 

do, or did not know the things which all this while 
himself could do and did know very well; as to be 
sure, if he was the supreme God, he could and did. 
For this were to make him say what is most false, 
and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner." (See 
Emlyn.) This position is not correct. Christ could, 
with truth and agreeably to the common usage of lan- 
guage, deny that of one nature, which belongs to the 
other. He could, as Son of man, truly say, he knew 
not the day of the dissolution of the world, while, as 
Son of God, he knew the time. The Scriptures rep- 
resent man as mortal. Job calls him "mortal man." 
The same volume of inspiration represents man to be 
immortal. Christ hath brought life and immortality 
to light by the Gospel. Must the Scriptures be 
charged with deceit, equivocation and falsehood, 
because, at one time, they call man mortal; and at 
other times represent him to be immortal; because, 
at those particular times, they do not express any 
limitation? This accusation lies with as much force 
against the word of God in its representation of man, 
as against Jesus Christ in speaking of himself, some- 
times in one nature, sometimes in the other. It is a 
usual manner of speaking among people to say, 1 am 
mortal; and at other times to say, 1 am immortal; and 
at the time to express no limitation. They are under- 
stood. They are not charged with falsehood, be- 
cause it is known and admitted that they are composed 
of a material and mortal nature; and also of an im- 
material and immortal nature. If we admit that 
human and divine nature were united in Jesus Christ, 
we perceive that he might, without equivocation, 
sometimes speak of himself as human, and at other 
times as divine; that the apostle might, at one time, call 
him "the man Christ Jesus;" and, at another time, call 
him "the Lord from heaven." If Christ and his apos- 
tles had always spoken of him as a man, the conclusion 
would be fair, that he was only a man. l{ they had 
always spoken of him as God, it would be a fair con- 



OF THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST 299 

elusion that he was only divine. But as they some- 
times speak of him possessing human qualities, and at 
other times possessing divine perfections, the conclu- 
sion is equally fair that he is both human and divine. 
The Jews understood Christ to make himself equal 
with God and to make himself God; and they charged 
him with blasphemy. If he had been merely a man, 
it is presumed he would have repelled the charge in 
direct terms. But instead of this, he took them on 
their own ground, and refuted them on their own 
principles. He neither denied nor acknowledged his 
divinity; but shewed his accusers that upon their own 
principles he was justly exempt from the charge of 
blasphemy. This was all he needed to do, and this 
he did do. There were times, in which Christ ex- 
pressed his meaning in ambiguous language. When 
people were speaking of the temple, he said, "destroy 
this temple, and in three days I will rear it up." 
They understood him to speak of the temple of the 
Jews. He often spoke in parables, which the multi- 
tude did not understand. Jesus said, "verily, verily, I 
say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never 
see death." The Jews understood him to speak of 
natural death; and he did not correct their mistake. 
But who dares accuse him with deception, prevarication, 
and falsehoods 



ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY OF THE 
HOLY SPIRIT. 



The same sacred Scriptures, which disclose the unity 
of God, disclose also certain distinctions, or a plurality 
in the divine nature. Immediately after it is related 
that God created the heaven and the earth, it is re- 
lated that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
the waters." This difference of phraseology used to 
express divine operations, affords evidence that there 
is in the divine nature ground for certain distinctions. 
If the Spirit of God were in no respect different from 
God, it is hard to conceive why the inspired historian 
should make so sudden change of the divine name; 
that he should first use a noun of plural number and 
then a noun singular, which was embraced in that 
plurality. When such distinctions are made in the 
inspired writings they are worthy of notice and inves- 
tigation. The Spirit, under various names, is a prom- 
inent character in the Bible. From his works, his 
names, his attributes, and his connexion with the 
Father and the Son, may be inferred his nature and 
character. 

The works of the Spirit are an evidence of his par- 
ticular agency, and of his divinity. When the heaven 
and earth were created, "the earth was without form, 
and void; and darkness was upon the face of the 
deep." At this time, when matter was in a chaotic 
State, and there was no vitality in the shapeless mass, 
"The Spirit of God moved upon" (or hoveFed over 



ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY, &C. 301 

fiSJTlO) "the face of the waters." At this early 
stage of creation, the water was not collected into 
separate bodies, but covered the whole earth. In 
the original, the word, which is translated Spirit, also 
signifies wind. Some have, therefore, supposed that 
only the wind of God passed over the face of the 
waters. But there are objections to this construction. 
There is no evidence that the subtil fluid, the atmos- 
phere, was then created. If it were created as soon 
as the grosser matter of the earth, it can hardly be 
supposed that it was put in motion so as to become 
wind before the light and heat of the sun existed. It 
is more natural to suppose that the Spirit of God 
organized the matter, which was created, and infused 
into it prolific qualities. If it is the peculiar province 
of the Spirit to give spiritual life and restore order, it 
is easy to suppose that part of his work was to give 
natural life and establish order. If God, without 
manifested distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit, cre- 
ated all things, it is not absurd to attribute to each, 
when these distinctions were disclosed, the whole 
work, or any of its parts. 

"By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his 
hand hath formed the crooked serpent;" i. e. a con- 
stellation of this name. It cannot reasonably be sup- 
posed that this text imports that by wind he hath 
decorated the sky with stars and planets; neither can 
it be supposed that in connexion with this it would be 
added that his hand had formed a constellation of a 
certain name. But let it be admitted, as it is in our 
translation of the Bible, that the Spirit of God adorned 
the heavens with stars, and that God's hand formed 
the constellation, the crooked serpent, then it follows 
that the same work, which is attributed to God, is 
also attributed to his Spirit. 

Elihu reasoning with Job said, "The Spirit of God 
hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath 
given me life." In this passage he connects the ope- 
ration of the Spirit with the operation of the Almighty; 



302 ON THE DISTINCTION AN© D1VINITV 

to one he attributes his life, to the other he attributes 
his formation. After man was formed of the dust of 
the ground, "the Lord God breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In 
this text the word God, in the original is of plural num- 
ber. Of course, it embraces all that is included in the 
divine plurality; and if the Spirit of God is any thing, 
which belongs to God, it embraces him; and conse- 
quently the life of the first man may be attributed to 
him. The Psalmist in his meditation on the majesty 
of God, the dependence of creatures, and their disso- 
lution, observes, "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they 
are created" (or renewed.) In these passages, crea- 
tive power is attributed to the Spirit. 

The sending of teachers to instruct mankind is ap- 
plied to God; to Christ; and it is also applied to the 
Holy Ghost. God, by his prophet Jeremiah, said, "I 
have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets." 
"These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, 
saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the 
sick; cleanse the lepers; raise the dead; cast out 
devils; freely ye have received; freely give." The 
Holy Ghost does the same work. The prophet Isaiah 
says, "The Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me." 
"The Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas and 
Saul for the work whereunto / have called them. So 
they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed 
into Sileucia. Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves 
and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost 
hath made you overseers." 

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit communicate 
knowledge to teachers and people. "They shall be 
all taught of God. God shall reveal even this unto 
you." The apostle Paul speaking of the Gospel says, 
"Neither was I taught it but by the revelation of 
Jesus Christ." The Lord Jesus taught him what to 
do when he arrested him on his way to Damascus. 
The Holy Spirit also reveals or teaches. "It was 
revealed unto him, (Simeon) by the Holy Ghost that 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT, 303 

he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's 
Christ." "The Comforter — he shall teach you all 
things; and bring all things to your remembrancer 
whatsoever I have said unto you." God spake by 
those, whom he sent. "God — spake in time past unto 
the Fathers by the prophets. The Holy Spirit spake 
by the apostles. Christ cautioned his disciples not to 
premeditate what they should say when they should 
be brought before councils; and he adds, whatsoever 
shall be given you in that hour that speak ye; for it 
is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." 

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit dwell in believers. 
*'Know ye not that ye are the temple of God. — If 
any man defile the temple of God, him shall God 
destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple 
ye are. Ye are the temple of the living God, as God 
hath said, I will dwell in them. Know ye not your 
ownselves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye 
be reprobates? That Christ may dwell in your hearts 
by faith." The same is said of the Holy Spirit. 
"Even the Spirit of truth — dvvelleth with you and 
shall be in you. He that raised up Christ from the 
dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you. Know ye not that your 
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in 
you? Know ye not that the Spirit of God dwelleth 
in you?" 

Sanctification is attributed to the Father, to the 
Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Jude addressed his 
epistle "to them that are sanctified by God the 
Father." Of Christ it is said, "both he that sancti- 
fieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for 
which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 
The Holy Spirit is the Author of sanctification. "God 
hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation 
through sanctification of the Spirit." 

The second birth is attributed indiscriminately to 
God and to the Holy Spirit. "Which were bom, not 
of blood, — but of God. Whosoever is born of God 



304 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

doth not commit sin. Whatsoever is born of God 
overcometh the world." The same work is attributed 
to the Spirit. "Except a man be born of water and 
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Not by 
works of righteousness which we have done, but 
according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of 
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 

God leadeth his people. "I am the Lord thy God, 
which leadeth thee by the way thou shouldest go." 
Christ leadeth them. "He calleth his own sheep by 
name and leadeth them." The Holy Spirit does the 
office of leader. "As many as are led by the Spirit 
of God, the j are the sons of God. If ye be led by 
the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Not only God 
and Christ are called life; but the Holy Spirit is 
called by this name. "The Spirit is life." He is the 
Author of spiritual life. 

The dead are raised by the Father, by the Son 
and by the Spirit. "The Father raiseth up the 
dead and quickeneth them." "We should not trust 
in ourselves, but in God, which raiseth the dead." 
Christ is the resurrection and the life. "The Son 
quickeneth whom he will." "Destroy this temple 
and in three days I will raise it up." The resurrec- 
tion of Christ's body is attributed to the Holy Spirit. 
"Christ — being put to death in the flesh but quickened 
by the Spirit." 

The Holy Spirit strives with sinners. When the 
antediluvian world had become exceedingly corrupt, 
God declared that his Spirit should not always strive 
with man. The commands, "Quench not the Spirit; 
grieve not the Spirit of God," imply that people are 
the subjects of the operation of the Spirit. The 
declaration of Stephen in answer to his accusation, 
"Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers 
did, so do ye," supposes that the Holy Spirit exercises 
influence upon the human mind. He convinces of sin. 
He changes the heart. He sanctifies human nature. 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 305 

Where he has begun a good work he will carry it on 
until the day of Jesus Christ. The Spirit also helpeth 
our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray 
for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh inter- 
cession for us. 

The texts, which have just been quoted attribute 
certain w r orks to the Spirit. It is evident that the 
name Spirit or Holy Spirit does not signify Father nor 
Son; for it is used both in connexion with them and it 
is used separately. Why should he be represented 
as the Author of different works, if there were not 
some ground of distinction in the divine Nature, by 
•which he could act, in a certain sense, distinctly from 
the Father and the Son? Some divine works are per- 
formed by the divine Being in plurality. Other works 
are performed in a particular manner by the Father, 
or by the Son, or by the Holy Spirit. In the economy 
of redemption each has his peculiar office and work. 
They act so far distinctly that each performs works, 
peculiar to his office. They act so far unitedly that 
some of the same works are attributed to each. 
From the divine works there appears to be as much 
distinction between the Spirit and the Son, or the 
Spirit and the Father, as there is between the Son 
and the Father; and the Spirit appears to have a 
particular office and work no less than either. 

The texts, which have been quoted, not only rep- 
resent the Holy Spirit acting in a distinct office, but 
they represent him acting in union with the Father 
and the Son. The same works, which are attributed 
to them are also attributed to him. The act of crea- 
tion, of sending teachers, of instructing them, of speak- 
ing by them, of dwelling in believers and leading them; 
of changing the heart and sanctifying it, and of raising 
the dead are attributed to him, and to the Father and 
the Son. If he were not divine he would not be 
united with them in these divine works. If he were 
not, in some respect, distinct, they would not be attrib- 
uted to him. Although there is a distinction in the 
39 



306 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

divine nature; yet there is such a unity that many 
things, which are predicated of one are predicated of 
the others. 

It belongs peculiarly to the office of the Spirit in 
the work of salvation to strive with sinners; to con- 
vince them of sin; to change their hearts; to carry on 
the work of sanctification; to give light and comfort to 
believers. He strove with the old world to reclaim 
them. He strove with sinners in the apostles' days, 
and he has striven with them in every age. It is he, 
who changeth the disposition of the heart; guides the 
mind into all truth, and administers consolation. In the 
apostolic age, he was the Author of miraculous gifts. 
At a time when the apostles were together, "There 
came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty 
wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like 
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to 
speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." The multitude, which was composed of 
many nations, heard them speak in their own language. 

These works of the Spirit require divine attributes. 
To pass over those works, which he performed in com- 
mon with the Father and the Son, those acts, which 
are peculiar to his distinct office must be attributed 
to divine power. If it required divine power to cre- 
ate, it required equal power to repair the defaced 
works of creation. If it required divine power to 
form man, it requires the same power to renew, his 
fallen nature. It requires as great effort to change, as to 
form a nature. The Spirit, without doing violence to 
the human will, and without infringing upon moral 
freedom, changes the disposition of the heart. Power 
less than divine cannot change nature or its laws. 

In order to strive with man; to change his heart, 
and to lead him in the ways of truth and holiness, it 
is necessary to have a perfect knowledge of the human 
mind. If the Holy Spirit did not know the disposi- 
tion of all hearts, he might not know on which to 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 307 

bestow his influence, and what degrees of energy to 
put forth, to effectuate a change of different hearts. 
He needs to know what is in man, in order to remove 
the evil and set him right. It is not doubted that holy 
and fallen angels have access to the human mind and 
have influence upon it. But the sacred scriptures do 
not attribute a power of changing the heart to either. 

The apostle Paul, speaking of those great prepara- 
tions, which are made in the other world for those, 
who love God, adds, "God hath revealed them to us 
by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
the deep things of God." The deep things of God 
relate to the salvation of man. These things the 
angels desire to look into; but by reason of their finite 
powers, it appears, they are unable. But the Spirit 
searcheth these things, and is perfectly acquainted 
with them. He as fully knows the things of God, as 
the Spirit of a man knows the things of a man. 

The revelation of the divine will by the Spirit, is 
an argument in favor of his divine knowledge. "God 
hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." He did 
not reveal them to his Spirit; for the Spirit of God 
knoweth the things of God. These things the Spirit 
communicated to the prophets and apostles. "Holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost." 

Wisdom is also attributed to the Spirit. When h 
was prophesied that a Branch should grow out of the 
root of Jesse, it was also prophesied, "the Spirit of the 
Lord shall rest upon him; the Spirit of wisdom and 
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the 
Spirit of knowledge." 

The communications made by the Spirit to men, 
afford evidence of his particular agency and divinity. 
"There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
To one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to 
another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit. 
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the 
gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the 



303 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 






working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another 
discerning of spirits; to another diverse kinds of 
tongues. But all these worketh that one and the self 
same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
will." There is no intimation given that the Spirit 
derived his power and authority from a superior Being 
to bestow these miraculous gifts on the apostles. 
When the prophets and apostles wrought miracles, 
they attributed the works ultimately to God. But the 
Spiirt distributed these gifts as he would. This con- 
veys the idea of his independence. If miraculous 
operations are an evidence of the existence of God, 
they are, when attributed absolutely to the Holy 
Spirit, an equal evidence of his divinity. 

The sacred scriptures afford evidence that the 
Spirit is omnipresent. Various texts convey the idea 
that the influence of the Spirit is shed abroad in man- 
kind generally. "My Spirit shall not always strive 
with man. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as 
your fathers did, so do ye." The influence of the 
Spirit upon believers is repeatedly asserted in the 
word of God. It was a petition of the Psalmist, 
"Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." "The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
children of God." If operation in the material and in- 
telligent world forms an argument in favor of God's 
omnipresence, operation of the same extent in the 
moral world, forms an equal argument in favor of the 
omnipresence of the Spirit, and consequently of his 
divinity. The question of the Psalmist, "Whither 
shall I go from thy Spirit?" implies that it was impos- 
sible to flee from his presence. 

Goodness is attributed to the Spirit. The Psalmist 
saith, "Thy Spirit is good." Goodness is attributed 
to the Father and the Son. If it be a divine attri- 
bute in them, there is no cause to say, it is not a divine 
attribute when applied to him. 

The Spirit is eternal. The apostle Paul to the 
Hebrews, speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, says. 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 309 

"who through the eternal Spirit offered himself with- 
out spot to God." 

The names given to the Spirit are an evidence of 
his divinity. He is, by way of eminence, called the 
Holy Spirit. This title is equivalent to that given to 
God, the Holy One. It is with peculiar propriety 
that he is called the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Holiness. 
He is not only holy himself, but he is the Author of 
holiness in the human heart. He is called the Spirit 
of truth. He revealed truth to the prophets and 
apostles; led them into all truth, and enabled them to 
communicate it to the world. When he, the Spirit of 
truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and 
will shew you things to come. 

He is called the Holy Spirit of promise. The 
Spirit was promised through the medium of John the 
Baptist. Christ, just before his ascension into heaven, 
observed to his disciples, "I send the promise of the 
Father unto you." So frequently had the Spirit been 
promised, that it was with propriety he was called 
"the Promise," or the Spirit of promise. He is also 
called the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, and the 
eternal Spirit. Christ styles him the Comforter, 
Christ said to his disciples, "the Comforter, which 
is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send 
in my name, he shall teach you all things. If I go not 
away the Comforter will not come unto you." He 
gives comfort to sinners by changing their hearts and 
giving them an enjoyment, which they never before 
experienced. He gives comfort to believers by in- 
creasing light in their minds; and by leading them 
forward toward heaven. He witnesseth with their 
spirits that they are born of God. 

The fruit of the Spirit is love; love to God and man. 
It is joy; joy arising from holy affections and from 
divine service. It is peace; peace of mind and peace 
in society. It is long-suffering; it is a patient bear- 
ing of injuries. It is gentleness; softness of manners. 



310 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINFl'Y 

It is goodness; a kind disposition carried into opera- 
tion. It is faith; confidence in divine promises, and 
fidelity in trusts and engagements. It is meekness; 
calmness under provocations. It is temperance; a 
moderate use of the bounties of providence. These 
virtues are the fruit of the Spirit. Such holy fruit 
indicates that the Spirit is holy and divine. 

The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit to do 
the works of his office. John the Baptist, speaking 
of Christ said, "He shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire." Agreeably to this declaration, 
Christ after his ascension sent down the Holy Spirit 
upon his apostles; and cloven tongues like as of fire 
sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the 
Holy Ghost. "How much more shall your heavenly 
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." 
"When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto 
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
proceedeth from the Father." Christ saith, **| will 
send him unto you." "The Holy Ghost, whom God 
hath given to them that obey him. Because ye are 
sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Because the 
Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, it is proba- 
ble he is called sometimes the Spirit of the Father, 
and sometimes the Spirit of Christ. 

If the Spirit is sent by the Father and by Christ, 
it is only an official subjection; it implies no inferiority 
of nature. The covenant of redemption was made 
between the Father and the Son, and the Spirit, and 
they are employed in the salvation of this fallen world. 
So intimate is the union between them that one can do 
nothing without the other; and what is attributed to 
one is generally attributed to either; and yet they are 
so distinct that particular names, offices and works 
are given to each. 

Divine honors are given to the Holy Spirit. The 
ordinance of baptism is administered in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 311 

By this ordinance persons are consecrated to the sacred 
Three. If it be an ascription of honor to the Father 
to consecrate one's self or his offspring to his service, 
it is an equal honor to the Son to make such consecra- 
tion to him; and it is the same honor to the Holy 
Spirit to make the same consecration to him. By 
making a dedication to the Father, Son and Spirit, it 
conveys an idea of distinction in the divine nature. 
When people are baptized in, or into the name ("not 
names") of the Father, Son and Spirit, it implies that 
one name, the name God, is common to them all. It 
is hard to conceive why these three are unitedly 
named in the ordinance of baptism, if there be not a 
union of nature subsisting between them, and the 
same honor is not conferred on each. The blessing, 
which the apostle Paul pronounced upon the Corin- 
thian church, gives the same honor to the Spirit as to 
the Father, and Son. "The grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Spirit be with you all." Here again the Three 
are united, and the same honor is given to each. 

It is a great sin to oppose or speak against the 
Holy Spirit. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the 
Jews under the blessings of Heaven, says, "They re- 
belled and vexed his Holy Spirit; therefore he was 
turned to be their enemy; and he fought against 
them." Particular commands are given in the sacred 
scriptures not to sin against the Spirit. "Grieve not 
the Holy Spirit of God. Quench not the Spirit." If 
there were not something in the divine nature pecu- 
liar to him, it is hard to conceive why he should be 
singled out by name; and his rights be secured by a 
barrier of divine commands. The martyr Stephen 
addressed his unbelieving audience as great sinners, 
because they always resisted the Holy Ghost. So 
great is the guilt of the sin against the Holy Spirit, 
that the apostle Paul expressly declares that it is im- 
possible for those, who were made partakers of the 
Holy Ghost, if they fall away, to renew them again 



312 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

to repentance. There is a sin unto death. Supplica- 
tion is not to be made to God for its remission. This 
is thought by many to be a sin against the Holy Ghost. 

The apostle Peter charged Ananias and Sapphira 
with tempting the Spirit of the Lord; with lying to 
the Holy Ghost. He added, "thou hast not lied unto 
men, but unto God." It is noticable that, in these 
passages, lying to the Holy Ghost is lying to God. So 
great was their sin that their lives were miraculously 
taken from them. 

Christ, in answer to the Pharisees who accused him 
of casting out devils by Beelzebub, said, "All manner 
of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but 
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be 
forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word 
against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but 
whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, 
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
neither in that which is to come." This declaration 
of the Savior proves the great criminality of sin against 
the Holy Spirit. Whether it is more criminal in its 
nature to speak against the Holy Spirit, than it is to 
speak against the Father or the Son, it is not the pro- 
vince of human reason to decide. It is sufficient that 
Christ has said, this sin is unpardonable. The decision 
of divine authority upon this subject proves that it is, 
at least, as criminal to sin against him, as it is to sin 
against the Father or Son. This is a forcible evidence 
in proof of the Spirit's distinction, of his divinity, and 
of his claim to divine service. 

When the sacred scriptures represent the Holy- 
Spirit, possessing certain attributes, and acting in a 
certain office; when they give him divine names, attri- 
bute to him divine properties, and divine works; 
ascribe to him divine honors, and represent sin against 
him to be the only one which is unpardonable, there 
appears to be as much proof of his distinction and 
divinity, as there is of the distinction and divinity of 
the Father or Son. 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 313 

1. It is proper to notice some objections, which 
are brought against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
It is thought by some that the Holy Spirit is the ful- 
ness of the Godhead; or the productive, efficient 
emanations of divine fulness; that the Holy Spirit 
bears the same relation to God as the rays of the sun 
bear to the sun. 

This comparison appears to be defective. The rays 
of the sun are not the fulness of the sun. They are 
not a source from which light and heat proceed. It 
is not philosophical to say, light proceeds from light; 
and heat proceeds from heat. The rays of the sun 
depend on the sun. If the sun were extinguished, his 
rays would cease. Subordination, but not dependence, 
is attributed, in the scriptures, to the Spirit. They 
attribute to him sovereignty, when they represent him 
distributing miraculous gifts severally as he will. If 
the Holy Spirit be but an emanation of the Deity, it 
appears highly improper that a proper name should 
be given him; that divine attributes should be attrib- 
uted to him; and that he should be represented in an 
official capacity. If he be sometimes represented 
passively, or as the operation or effect of the Deity, 
it is when he acts in his office in subordination to the 
Father and the Son, or when his operations are 
spoken of. 

2. The distinction and divinity of the Holy Spirit 
is denied, because he is called the Spirit of God; as 
divine power is called the power of God; as a human 
spirit is called the spirit of a man. Hence it is infer- 
red that the Spirit of God bears the same relationship 
to God as his attributes bear to him; or as the spirit 
of a man bears to a man. It is true the Holy Spirit 
is represented as something belonging to God. So 
the Father and the Son are represented as something 
belonging to God, or the divine nature. But this does 
not deprive them of divinity. The Holy Spirit is 
sometimes called the Spirit of the Father, and some- 
limes he is called the Spirit of Christ. If the Holy 
40 



314 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

Spirit bears the same relation to the Father and Son 
as the spirit of a man bears to a man, and the Father 
and Son be two entirely distinct beings, it follows that 
there are two Holy Spirits. It is probable the Holy 
Spirit is called the Spirit of God or of the Father, 
because he is sent by him and acts in subordination to 
him. The spirit of man does not mean the man, so 
the Holy Spirit of God does not mean the divine 
nature without its distinctions; but it means one of the 
divine plurality. 

3. "The breath of the Lord is used as synony- 
mous with the Spirit of the Lord. The hand of the 
Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are used as synony- 
mous. The finger of God and the Spirit of God are 
synonymous." From this statement it is inferred that 
it is not proper or respectful to speak of one self-ex- 
istent person as the breath, the hand, the finger of 
another co-equal person. 

In reply to this objection, it is worthy of notice that 
the original word, which is translated spirit, also sig- 
nifies breath, or wind. As wind is a powerful, subtle, 
invisible agent, there is a propriety in giving the same 
name to the Spirit, whose operations are powerful, 
subtle and invisible. It is a striking trait in the 
Hebrew language that one word is used to signify 
different things, when there is a striking analogy or 
resemblance between those things. Because the 
Spirit is called by a name, which signifies breath or 
wind, it does not follow that he is this substance. 
When God is called a Rock, it does not mean that he 
is a rock, but that there is a striking resemblance be- 
tween them. It is no more disrespectful to the Spirit 
to call him by a name signifying breath or wind, than 
it is to call God a fire, and Christ a fountain. It is not 
disrespectful to apply pertinently figurative language 
to the divine nature. 

Because people work with their hands or fingers. 
God is said to work in the same manner. As the 
Spirit is in his hand to send him where he pleaseth. 



OP THE HOLV SPIRIT. 315 

it is proper to say by a figure of speech, when he 
worketh by his Spirit, that he worketh with his hand. 
This mode of speech is adapted to our capacities. 
We have not an adequate .idea of the operations of 
pure Spirit. 

4. As the sending or giving the Spirit is repre- 
sented by pouring out, shedding forth, sprinkling, wash- 
ing or baptizing; and the descent of the Spirit is com- 
pared to the descent of rain and dew, it is thought to 
be improper to apply this metaphorical language to 
the Spirit, if he be one of the Trinity. 

The propriety of this figurative language, when 
applied to the Spirit, arises from the nature, the ope- 
rations, and the effects of the Spirit. Pouring out, 
sprinkling, washing, &c. are literally applied to water. 
They are figuratively applied to the operations of the 
Spirit, because the Spirit is, in his nature, like water, 
pure. In his effects he is, like water, purifying. Like 
water he invigorates and fructifies. Like the rain 
and dew he is gentle in his operation. When there 
is such a striking similarity between the Spirit and 
water, it is proper to take those phrases, which are 
literally applied to water and apply them figuratively 
to the Spirit. Such pertinent figurative allusions do 
not militate against the divinity of the Spirit. If the 
Holy Spirit be but an emanation of divine fulness, it 
would be as uncouth to apply the phrase, pour out, 
to such an emanation as to apply it to the operations 
of the Holy Spirit. The difficulty arises from con- 
founding figurative, with plain language. 

5. God's giving his Spirit without measure to Christ 
is thought to militate against the divine nature of the 
Spirit. The man Christ Jesus received extraordinary 
communications of the Spirit. He received greater 
aid from him than the prophets or apostles received. 
Because he received such copious effusions of the 
Spirit, it is said the Spirit was given to him not by 
measure; i. e. abundantly. It argues no more against 
the divinity of the Spirit that he was given to Christ 



316 ON THE DISTINCTION AND D1V1N1TV 

without measure, than that he was given to the 
prophets and apostles by measure. By measure and 
without measure denote the different degrees of the 
gilts or aid of the Spirit. 

6. Because the original word in the New Testa- 
ment, translated Spirit, and the articles and pronouns, 
agreeing with it or referring to it, are of neuter gender, 
it is inferred that the Spirit is not of divine nature. 

The Hebrew word for Spirit is of masculine termin- 
ation. But not to insist on this, the Greek word for 
Spirit in this text, "God is a Spirit," is of neuter gen- 
der. But the use of this gender in this passage does 
not prove that God is a mere thing, and not a divine 
Being. The Greek word for the spirit of man, for 
holy and for fallen spirits is of neuter gender. But 
this carries no evidence that the spirit of man is not 
human, or that the spirit of angels is not angelic. The 
Greek words for babe, and for children, whether they 
be youth or the children of God, are of neuter gender. 
But this use of this gender does not prove that they 
do not belong to the human family, or that they are 
not of human nature. The Holy Spirit is called the 
Comforter. The original word, translated Comforter, 
and the articles and pronouns agreeing with it, or 
referring to it, are of masculine gender. When Christ 
calls him another Comforter, he ranks him equal with 
himself; and at the same time points out his distinction 
and divinity. 

The Greek language was formed long before the 
Gospels and Epistles were committed to writing. 
The Greek word for spirit was of neuter gender. 
The inspired writers were not commissioned to make 
innovations in language. They took the word as it 
was, and applied it to the Holy Spirit. It is probable 
that they did not suspect it would mislead the human 
mind in succeeding ages, any more than when it was 
applied to man or angel. 

7. Much is said in the scriptures of the mutual 
love between the Father and the Son, and the dispo- 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 317 

sition of each to honor the other. It is suggested that 
such reciprocal love between the Spirit and the 
Father, and between the Spirit and the Son, is not 
mentioned in the scriptures. This forms another ob- 
jection to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 

The reason, for which the love between the Father 
and Son is so frequently and fully expressed in the 
Bible, probably is the near relationship, which sub- 
sists between them; the covenant, which was formed 
and ratified by them and the sufferings and humiliation 
of the Son to support the authority of God. If the 
love between the Spirit, and the Father, and Son, be 
not so fully expressed in the Bible, the love is natu- 
rally inferred from the language of scripture. The 
Spirit harmonizes with them in the covenant of re- 
demption. He co-operates with them in the work of 
salvation. In his office he is subordinate to them and 
submissive to their commands. This harmony and 
concurrence between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
suppose that reciprocal affection subsists between 
them. At the baptism of Christ the Holy Spirit 
descended, rested upon him and performed that act 
of consecration, which the application of water repre- 
sented. His continuance with Christ indicated the 
union and affection, which subsisted between them. 

8. Much is said in the scriptures of the love of 
the Father towards mankind, ana also of the love of 
the Son. It is suggested that there is nothing said of 
the love of the Holy Spirit toward the human race. 
On this ground it is objected that the Holy Spirit is 
not of divine nature. 

Much is said in the sacred scriptures which implies 
the love of the Holy Spirit toward mankind. His 
works express his love. He strives with sinners for 
the benevolent purpose of convincing them of their 
sin and of their danger. He does not relinquish this 
gracious work till he has been long and obstinately 
resisted. He changes the human heart. He carries 
on the work of sanctification till the day of the Lord 



318 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

Jesus. He qualifies his subjects for the reception of 
the benefits of Christ's righteousness. To qualify 
people to receive the benefits of Christ's sacrifice is a 
work no less benevolent and gracious than the offering 
of the sacrifice itself. 

The Holy Spirit expresses an earnest desire that 
sinners should reform and be saved. "The Holy 
Ghost saith, to day if ye will hear his voice, harden 
not your hearts." God by his apostle commanded 
saying, "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." This 
command implies that the Holy Spirit is grieved on 
account of the hardness of the human heart. The 
scriptures attribute to the divine Being, human shape, 
human organs, and human passions. This mode of 
expression is adopted not to convey the idea that God 
possesses these human properties, but to represent 
his actions as if he were influenced by human sensa- 
tions. When the Holy Spirit is brought to view 
grieving for the sinful, unhappy state of man, he ap- 
pears in the exercise of the tenderest love, and desir- 
ous to promote the salvation of man. He is called 
the Comforter. He administers consolation to con- 
verted sinners. He gives them peace and quietude 
of mind and hope of future blessedness. In this view 
of the Holy Spirit he appears not only in the exercise 
of love to the human race, but he appears in a distinct 
and official capacity. 

9. We are required to love the Father and the 
Son; but as we are not commanded expressly and 
distinctly to love the Spirit, it is inferred that he is 
not of divine nature. 

Where is it expressly commanded in the Bible to 
love the Father distinctly; or to love the Son distinctly? 
The divine command is, thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart. The command has no respect 
to any distinction in the divine nature; but it applies 
to all that belongs to it. When we are commanded 
to love God, we are required to love all, which is 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 319 

embraced in the term God; and this general name 
usually embraces the Father, Son, and Spirit. 

10. It is objected to the Spirit's divinity, that there 
is no express command to render worship to him. 

When the Spirit is united with the Father and Son 
in the ordinance of baptism, the same honor is given 
to him as to them. When it is considered that 
speaking against the Holy Spirit is the greatest of 
sins, that it is unpardonable, it is astonishing that any 
should view him standing in a disrespectful situation; 
that any should view him not entitled to divine honors, 
nor claiming the prerogatives of divinity. When God 
is worshipped, the Spirit, if he belong to God, is also 
worshipped. 

The Holy Spirit is represented by many passages 
of scripture to possess divine properties and to per- 
form divine works Sometimes he is represented in 
a passive form. It is then he acts in subordination to 
the Father and the Son. It is not a fair construction 
of the scriptures to turn plain declarations from their 
most natural meaning into a figurative signification for 
the purpose of strengthening a particular class of 
texts, or for the purpose of supporting a favorite 
theory. 

In the work of salvation there appear to be three 
offices, three kinds of works, and three characters. 
One proposes, another complies. One pays the ran- 
som, another accepts; and the third prepares subjects 
to receive its benefits. All this is done with perfect 
harmony; and each is entitled to equal love and vene- 
ration. 

It has been asserted by some that no name, attri- 
bute, nor work is attributed exclusively to the Holy 
Spirit. (See Purvcs, pp. 8. 15.) From this it is infer- 
red that the Holy Spirit is God the Father, or that it 
is his energy, influence, or operation. It does not ap- 
pear to be certain that this position is true. He i& 
called the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of truth. The Father 
is called holy. God is called a Spirit; and he is called 



320 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

the true God. But he is not called in scripture the 
Holy Spirit; nor the Spirit of truth. Holy Spirit ap- 
pears to be as proper and as discriminating a name as 
the name Jesus Christ. Some things are predicated of 
the Holy Spirit, which are not predicated of the 
Father. "The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily 
shape, like a dove upon him," (i. e. Christ) Luke 3:22. 
It appears to be no more incredible that the Holy 
Spirit should assume a certain similitude, than that 
the Son of God should do the same before his incarna- 
tion. It is believed that the Father never has mani- 
fested himself by any likeness. "No man hath seen 
God at any time," John 1:18. Christ, speaking of 
the Father, says, "Ye have neither heard his voice 
at any time, nor seen his shape," John 5:37. The 
Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ. "God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts," Gal. 
4:6. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, 
either because he rested upon him in his human na- 
ture, or because he was sent by him into the world. 
But the Father is not called the Spirit of Christ. It 
is through the Spirit, Jews and Gentiles have access 
to the Father. "We both have an access by one 
Spirit unto the Father," Ephes. 2:18. It was not by 
the Father they had access to the Father. Nor is 
it probable that it was by the energy of the Father, 
they had access to him. 

The conception of Mary is attributed to the Holy- 
Spirit. "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 
That, which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost," 
Matt. 1:18,20. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 
thee, therefore also, that holy thing, that shall be born 
of thee, shall be called the Son of God," Luke 1:35. 
In the two first of these passages, Mary's concep- 
tion of the body of Jesus is attributed to the Holy 
Ghost. In the latter passage, in which the manner of 
her conception is described, the Holy Ghost and the 
power of the Highest are both brought to view. 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 321 

If the power of the Highest is any thing different 
from the Holy Ghost, it implies the joint operation of 
the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is believed that 
no divine work is performed, exclusively by the Father, 
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. But the influence in 
the conception of Mary was so peculiarly the Holy 
Spirit's, that the work is attributed to him. 

Jesus Christ has authority to send the Holy Spirit 
into the world. "But when the Comforter is come, 
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the 
Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he 
shall testify of me," John 15:26. "If I go not away, 
the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart 
/ will send him unto you. And when he is come, he 
will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, 
and of judgment. Whatsoever he shall hear, that 
shall he speak, and he will shew you things to come. 
He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine; and 
shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father 
hath are mine; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, 
and shall shew it unto you," John 16:7,8,13,14,15. 
Whoever, or whatever the Comforter, the Spirit of 
truth is, he or it, is evidently subordinate to Jesus 
Christ. What he hears he speaks. He is sent into 
the world. He receives of Christ. These passages 
as decisively express his subordination to the Son, as 
any passages in the scriptures express the Son's sub- 
ordination to the Father. It will not be maintained 
that the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, is God the 
Father. Suppose then that it is his energy, influence, 
or operation. Christ has authority over it. He sends 
it into the world. Whatever this influence shews 
unto the world, it receives of Christ. It is an extra- 
ordinary economy indeed if the Son is subordinate to 
the Father, and at the same time has authority over 
his energy, influence, or operation. To say the least, 
it is as mysterious as the doctrine of the distinction 
and divinity of the Holy Spirit. 

In the passages, which have been quoted, and in 
many others, the Holy Spirit appears to possess all 
41 



322 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

the qualities of divinity. But we are told that the 
influences of the Father are personified, and are called 
the Holy Spirit. It appears evident that we are some- 
times to understand the name Holy Spirit, to import 
only his influences or communications. The figure, 
personification, is often used in the sacred scriptures. 
But it is hardly credible, that Christ in his discourse 
with his disciples respecting the great and important 
communication, which he would make to them after 
he had left the world, should adopt such figurative 
language. In the simple narration of events, which 
were to take place, we should not naturally expect a 
train of personifications connected with plain language. 
We should hardly expect that the form of baptism 
would be made up of words partly of natural and 
partly of figurative meaning. To baptize persons in 
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the influ- 
ences of the Father, appears to be a striking incon- 
gruity. There appears to be just as much ground 
for asserting that the two first names in the form of 
baptism are figurative, as that the last is so. 

If all the names, attributes, and works, which are 
attributed to the Holy Spirit, are also attributed to 
the Father, it does not appear to follow that he is the 
Father, or his influences. It is believed there is such 
a union of nature, and such a concurrence of opera- 
tion between the Father and the Holy Spirit, that 
what is attributed to one may be attributed to the 
other. Besides, he appears to be subordinate to the 
Father and the Son. If, in the performance of the 
works peculiar to his office, he is commissioned or 
sent by them, it is agreeable to the common use of 
language, and to the general apprehensions of people 
to attribute the same work to either. Fur example; the 
chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador to a 
foreign court. The latter negotiates and adjusts some 
important matters. The former approves what he 
has done. The negotiation is attributed indiscrimin- 
ately to each. 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



323 



Some passages in the sacred scriptures, which con- 
tain the name of the Spirit, appear to be difficult to 
be explained, unless we admit that he is, in some sense, 
distinct from the Father. "Through him, (i. e. 
Christ) we both have an access by one Spirit unto the 
Father" Ephes. 2:18. It will not be maintained that 
Spirit, in this text, signifies the Father. Nor does it 
appear evident that this one Spirit signifies the influ- 
ences of the Father. It appears to be a very unnat- 
ural construction to say, we both have an access to the 
Father, by the one influence, of the Father. It ap- 
pears to be unnatural to suppose that the Father is 
inaccessible excepting by his own influences. The 
communication of his influences would imply that he 
was accessible. Admit the distinct operations of the 
Spirit, and the construction appears to be natural and 
easy. Through Christ we both have access by the 
influences of the Spirit unto the Father. 

"The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with 
groanings, which cannot be uttered. And he that 
searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of 
the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the 
saints according to the will of God," Rom. 8:26,27. 
In these passages the Holy Spirit is represented inter- 
ceding, groaning and having a mind; and he intercedes 
according to the will of God. This appears to im- 
ply distinct operation. It would be a bold figure to 
represent the influences of the Father, having a mind 
and making intercession to him according to his will. 
It would be a very unnatural construction to say that 
the Father, who searcheth the hearts, knoweth the 
mind of his own operations; and knoweth them on this 
ground, because their intercessions are agreeable to 
his will. We believe that the apostle did not thus 
darken his meaning by an unnatural use of words. 

In view of the divinity of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, it is inquired, "Must not three divine 
Beings be three Gods? — Does reason teach or admit 
the existence of three Gods, equal, and infinite in 



324 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY 

divine attributes? — Does reason teach or admit the 
existence of* three beings, equal and infinite in divine 
attributes? — Is it not difficult to conceive of, and con- 
template three divine persons otherwise than so many 
separate and distinct beings? — Must not this one God 
then possess three sets of all divine attributes? — If all 
fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the 
Father, must not this fulness have been a derived 
fulness? — The fact however is, that the fulness, which 
dwells in Christ is the fulness of the Father.'''' (See 
Serious Inquirer, pp. 6,7,30,43,49.) 

It is not denied that some Trinitarian writers have 
given too much occasion tor these inquiries. It is not 
denied that difficulty attends the contemplation of the 
divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whether 
we contemplate the divine nature existing in plurality, 
or in unity, there is difficulty. It is not surprising that 
an infinite subject should be difficult for finite minds. 
It is unfortunate that the subject should be made to 
appear more difficult by ill chosen words and phrases. 
In treating of the divine Nature, it is not necessary 
to represent it consisting of three distinct beings, agents, 
or persons. Nor is it necessary to represent the Fa- 
ther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as distinct persons, 
agents, or beings. It is not necessary to attempt to 
explain the mode of divine subsistence. It is sufficient 
to shew from scripture that the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Spirit are divine. When it is inquired, how 
can these things be? we do not attempt to answer the 
question. But if we find evidence from scripture that 
these things are so, it is sufficient to make them 
articles of belief? 

When it is said that the Father is God, the Son is 
God, the Holy Spirit is God, it is not to be understood 
that each is God, or possesses all divine attributes 
distinctly and separately from the other two. If this 
were the case, there would be three Gods. But it is 
to be understood that there is such a ground of dis- 
tinction between them, that some works are peculiarly 



OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 325 

attributed to the Father, some to the Son, and others 
to the Holy Spirit; and at the same time there is such 
a ground of union between them, that some works 
are attributed indiscriminately to each. It is replied, 
this distinction and this union in divine nature is unin- 
telligible. Be it so. Let us bring under review a 
subject, with which we are better acquainted; and 
about which there is less dispute. Let us take human 
nature. Let us take man. He exists in duality. He 
consists of matter and spirit; or of body and soul. 
Some actions are attributed to one and some to the 
other; and some are attributed to both without dis- 
crimination. A man walks. The act is attributed 
specially to his body. But there is a concurrent ac- 
tion of his spirit, or mind. A man reflects, or calcu- 
lates. The act is attributed specially to his mind. 
But there is no doubt that his mental exercises are 
affected, more or less, by his material part. We 
speak of a wise man, and of a strong man. In the 
one case we speak peculiarly of his corporeal nature; 
in the other, of his spiritual nature; and in both cases 
we include, by the word man, both natures. Could 
the body, in its individual capacity, speak, it might 
truly say, of myself I can do nothing. It is the mind, 
which dwelleth in me, that doeth the works. Does 
it follow from this that the body was not human, or 
did not belong to the man? Does if follow that the 
matter and spirit, which compose human nature, make 
two men? Is it difficult to conceive of, and contem- 
plate on these two natures, body and soul, otherwise 
than so many distinct beings or men? Must this one man 
possess two sets of all human qualities? We allow that 
the distinction between, and the union of, soul and 
body are unintelligible. But upon evidence it is ad- 
mitted as matter of fact. We affirm and deny the 
same thing of human nature. We say, man is mortal; 
and we say, man is immortal; we say he is material, 
and we say, he is spiritual; and we are believed. 
At one time Christ said, "The Father is greater 



326 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DITINITV 

than I." At another time he claimed a relationship to 
him, by which he was understood to make himself 
God, or equal with God; and the apostle Paul states 
that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God." 

It is not supposed that divine Nature can be ade- 
quately explained, or illustrated by arguments drawn 
from human nature. But the foregoing observations 
are made to shew that if man exists in duality, there 
appears to be no impossibility that God should exist 
in Trinity; that if this duality in human nature does 
not involve two sets of all human properties, a Trinity 
in divine nature does not necessarily involve "three 
sets of all divine attributes;" that if the body and 
soul of man do not constitute him two distinct and 
separate beings, there appears to be no necessity of 
resolving the divine Nature, designated by the names 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into three distinct and 
separate beings. From the mode of existence of hu- 
man nature we do not infer what is the mode of divine 
existence. But when we admit the peculiar manner 
of human existence with all its difficulties, there ap- 
pears to be no necessity of denying a peculiar manner 
of divine existence, when similar, and perhaps to our 
apprehension, not greater difficulties attend it. 

It does not appear to be necessary to contend 
whether the two natures of Jesus Christ constitute 
one 'person, or not. The dispute is merely about names. 
When the name person is applied to Christ in both 
natures, it signifies something different from what it 
signifies when applied to any other being. Of course, 
objections may be raised against this complex person- 
ality, (as it is called) which would not lie either against 
his divinity or humanity. If it be proved by scrip- 
ture that two natures are united in Jesus Christ, it is 
unnecessary to contend for the word person. 

In examining the subject of divine Nature it is found 
that difficulty is not peculiar to the Trinitarian hypo- 
thesis. Those, who vindicate the simple unity of God, 



OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 327 

believe his omnipresence. They believe he is pres- 
ent in different parts of • the world and in heaven at 
the same time. They believe he exercises his attri- 
butes in different parts of creation at one and the same 
time; and that he is conscious of all his operations. 
He exercises divine power, wisdom and goodness on 
earth. At the same time he exercises divine power, 
wisdom and goodness in heaven. At the same time he 
is conscious of his operations in both places. We ask 
in our turn, must there not be as many conscious- 
nesses, "as many sets of all divine attributes," as many 
distinct beings, or agents, as there are places, in which 
God is, and acts. God is here; and God is there. If 
he be wholly here, how can he be there? If he be 
partly here, and partly there, a part is less than the 
whole; and of course, must not something less than 
God be here; and something less than God be there; 
and must not the supposition imply a division of the 
divine nature? Let it be shewn how these difficulties 
may be removed, and it will help Trinitarians to re- 
move the difficulties, which are alleged against their 
system. 

"It pleased the Father that in him should all ful- 
ness dwell," Col. 1:19. "In him dwelleth all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead bodily," Col. 2:9. "But if all 
fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the 
Father," it is inquired, "must not this fulness have been 
a derived fulnessV Does it not seem to imply that for all 
the attributes or excellences, which Christ possessed, 
he was dependent on his Father? — The fact however 
is, that the fulness, which dwells in Christ, is the ful- 
ness of the Father. But what is this fulness, aside 
from those "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" im- 
parted to Christ by the Father for the benefit of the 
church? — That the wisdom and power of the Father 
resided in him. (See Serious Inquirer, pp. 30,43.) 
• If the fulness of the Father, i. e. his wisdom, knowl- 
edge and power, was derived from him and dwelt in 
Christ, and he "possessed" them, it seems that, when 



328 ON THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

Christ possessed this fulness, the Father did not pos- 
sess it, unless two distinct beings could possess the same 
numerical properties. As this is impossible, it ap- 
pears that, if Christ possessed the fulness of the 
Father, the Father suffered a privation of his fulness; 
and that he retained nothing but his name. But ii 
this be not the consequence, we inquire, would not 
the fulness of the Father, added to the man Christ 
Jesus, be greater than the Father himself? Is it possi- 
ble that divine attributes can be transferred? Is it pos- 
sible that a finite being can be the recipient and pos- 
sessor of infinite qualities? If the fulness of the Father 
dwelt in Christ, in no other sense than it dwells in 
heaven, or on earth, or in christians, might not di- 
vine works be attributed, with as much propriety to 
them, as to him? And how could Christ express that 
reciprocal union, which subsisted between him and the 
Father, u / am in the Father, and the Father in me." 
If the Father retained all his attributes after he had 
imparted his fulness to Christ, would there not be an 
increase of divinity? Would there not be two sets of 
divine attributes? But where will our inquiries lead 
us? The fact is, it is easier to raise difficulties, than to 
remove them. We need to be cautious, lest we con- 
demn that in others, which we approve in ourselves. 






THE CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY 
WITH OTHER DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED 
SCRIPTURES. 



The different parts of Christianity perfectly corres- 
pond with each other. Its doctrines compose one 
great chain, whose links are intimately connected. If 
one doctrine be weakened, the whole system is affect- 
ed. If one doctrine be expunged, the connexion is 
dissolved. It is not the province of human imperfec- 
tion to define the utmost extent of error, which will 
not make the Christian religion another gospel. But 
it is evident that every error in religion is of evil ten- 
dency; and an incorrect opinion of one doctrine natu- 
rally leads to an incorrect opinion of others. Our 
holy religion is a well connected and proportioned 
system. Errors also have their connexion and pro- 
portion; and it is not seldom they are marshalled into 
a systematic form. If an incorrect sentiment of one 
doctrine of the Gospel be formed, this sentiment will 
not coalesce with other doctrines, till they are modi- 
fied, perverted, diluted and despoiled of their true 
meaning. It is unnatural for truth to unite with error; 
and for error to unite with truth. There is no fellow- 
ship; there is no bond of union between them. As 
far as error is incorporated with divine truth, so far 
the truth suffers; and the Christian system is marred. 
S ome errors are more pernicious than others. While 
42 



330 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

some strike at the foundation and subvert the whole 
fabric of Christianity, others only tarnish it. 

The divine plurality appears to be not only a prom- 
inent, but an important doctrine of the scriptures. 
Every manifestation of the divine Nature appears 
interesting; but none is more so, than that, which is 
made in the work of redemption. Here, if any 
where, the Trinity is disclosed; and a belief or a 
denial of this doctrine is intimately connected with a 
belief, or denial of most of the doctrines of the gospel. 
The doctrine of the Trinity appears to give an excel- 
lence and importance to other doctrines of Christianity, 
which, by a denial of it, are wholly lost. 

In the covenant of redemption there are contracting 
parties. The Father promises to give the Son the 
heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
of the earth for his possession; that he shall see of 
the travail of his soul and be satisfied; that he shall 
have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to 
the ends of the earth. This was promised him in 
view, and as a consequence of, his taking upon him 
the form of a servant, of humbling himself even to the 
ignominy and tortures of the cross. In view of this 
part of the covenant transaction, and of what he had 
to perform, the Son replied, "Lo, I come, (in the 
volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, 
O God." In the prosecution of the work of redemp- 
tion the Holy Spirit appears engaged in renewing 
human nature; in enlightening and comforting believ- 
ers, and sealing them to the day of redemption. His 
office and work afford evidence that he was concerned 
in the covenant of redemption. 

If there be a plurality in the divine Nature; if the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit constitute this 
plurality, they are competent to form and execute 
covenant engagements respecting the salvation of the 
human race. Each is adequate to his own peculiar 
work. The excellence and dignity of the high con- 
tracting parties give the greatest degree of importance 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 331 

to the transaction. The ability of each to fulfil his 
stipulated part, and the unity of design subsisting 
between them, afford ground of perfect confidence 
that the covenant engagements will be performed. 
The same Being, who, in plurality, said, "let us make 
man," was equally able to say, let us redeem man. 

But if there be no ground of distinction in the 
divine Nature; if the Son of God be merely a created 
being; if the Holy Spirit be only the operations of 
the Father, the covenant of redemption appears to 
lose its peculiar excellencies. The parties concerned 
are entirely disproportionate. There is no comparison 
between the Creator and a creature. It appears to 
be a manifest incongruity, that God should enter into 
compact with a created being respecting any matter, 
in which the latter was not personally concerned. To 
treat with him by an interchange of correspondent 
obligations seems to imply an exaltation of the creature 
to an equality with himself; or an abasement of him- 
self to a level with the creature. In forming the 
covenant of redemption, did infinite Wisdom need the 
assistance of any created intelligence? In carrying it 
into operation did the Almighty need the dependent 
power of any created being? It is not doubted that 
the Supreme Being employs ministering servants as 
agents in the administration of his government. But 
which of his agents stipulates with the divine Sove- 
reign, and produces claims upon him correspondent to 
his own obligations? The claims of the Son upon the 
Father to fulfil his part of the contract are not less 
valid and important than the claims of the Father 
upon the Son. What makes this case different from 
all other cases is this, what the Son did in redemption 
he did not for himself, but for others. He has, there- 
fore, hot only a claim upon the Father arising from 
promise, but he has a meritorious claim upon him to 
fulfil his part of the covenant. What created being 
can, after he has discharged his own personal obliga- 
tions, produce a surplus of righteousness, which may 



332 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

be accounted for the benefit of others; and then pro- 
duce a claim upon heaven for remuneration for extra 
services? Were this the case, were this the ground 
of salvation, then a created being would be the end of 
the law for righteousness to every one that believeth 
He would be made unto us wisdom, sanctificalion and 
redemption. 

The disparity between the Creator and a creature 
seems to preclude the possibility of their being con- 
tracting parties respecting the redemption of man. 
The disparity is infinitely greater than that existing 
between the highest sovereign on earth and his lowest 
subject. If the Son of God be merely a created being, 
he does not possess one quality in his nature, which 
renders him competent to contract with the Father, 
or to fulfil covenant engagements respecting the sal- 
vation of man. His wisdom would not be sufficient to 
devise concerning those things, which the angels 
desire to look into. His own power would not be 
competent to the performance of his part of the com- 
pact. Every thing pertaining to him and to his work 
would be limited; and he would be entirely incompe- 
tent to be a party in the covenant. 

If the Holy Spirit be not a party in the covenant; 
if he be only divine operation or influence, there 
appears to be an incongruity and deficiency in the 
scheme of redemption. It is the office of the Father 
to send the Son to fulfil his part of the covenant; to 
answer his requests; to accept what he does; and give 
him, as a recompense, what he had promised. It is 
part of the office of the Son to send the Holy Spirit 
to convince and convert sinners; to comfort believers 
and seal them to the day of redemption. If the Son 
be sent by the Father, if he be subordinate to him in 
his official work, it is incredible that he should have 
authority over the Father to control his operations 
and send them when and where he pleases. This 
would reverse the order of offices; and produce con- 
fusion in the economy of redemption. But if the Son 



DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 333 

and Holy Spirit be divine, as well as the Father, they 
are on equality; and they are suitable parties to enter 
into reciprocal compact. They are adequate to the 
performance of their respective parts. The cove- 
nant of redemption is an instrument, formed and con- 
firmed in all its articles by Divinity; and carries 
evidence with itself that it will be fulfilled. 

Let the doctrine of the Trinity be next viewed in 
relation to the atonement. If the Son of God be 
divine, it was infinite condescension for him to take 
upon him the form of a servant. He subjected him- 
self to the lowest degree of humiliation, when he 
veiled his divine glories with humanity in its lowest 
condition; when he suffered the scoffs and reproaches 
of his enemies; when he endured all the ignominy, 
which could be cast upon a crucified malefactor. The 
whole term of his abode on earth was a continued 
series of deep humiliation. The union of divinity 
with humanity gave the latter an extraordinary dig- 
nity and excellence. So intimate was the connexion 
of divinity and humanity that the second man is called 
the Lord from heaven; and the blood of the Son of 
man is called the blood of God. By the union of the 
Son of God with the Son of man, the sufferings of the 
humanity of Christ acquired an unspeakable impor- 
tance; and in conjunction with the abasement of the 
divine Son, they constituted a sacrifice, which was a 
propitiation for the sins of the world. Look at the 
cross and behold divinity and innocent humanity 
engaged in making an expiation for sin; the one 
enduring a concealment of his glories, and all the 
ignominy, which his enemies could cast upon him; 
and the other suffering the tortures of the cross. In 
this view the atonement appears to be of infinite 
importance. 

By the worth of the sacrifice, which was made, 
the guilt of sin may be accurately estimated. There 
was no suffering needlessly expended. If the victim, 
which was offered upon the cross was of infinite 



334 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

dignity and excellence, it follows that siD, which 
required such a sacrifice, was of infinite guilt. 

Admit the divinity of Christ and the consequent 
value of the atonement; and God's law appears per- 
fectly honorable. If the sacrifice be commensurate 
with the guilt of sin, the divine law suffers no diminu- 
tion of its requirements, or of its validity. It exhibits 
proof that it requires perfect satisfaction for every 
violation, or that, which will equally preserve its 
authority and efficacy. It exhibits proof that not one 
jot or tittle of its requirements is abated; and that 
while mercy is exercised, justice is satisfied. If the 
sacrifice for sin be made by the Son of God in con- 
junction with the Son of man, the divine law appears 
to be as fully honored and magnified, and God ex- 
presses as great abhorrence of sin, as if the threatened 
penalty were inflicted upon transgressors. 

But if the Son of God be merely a created being, 
there appears to be less condescension on the part of 
divinity. There appears to be less value in the 
atonement Sin appears with less malignity; and the 
divine law appears with great abatement of its require- 
ments. If Jesus Christ was merely human, it was no 
condescension in Deity that he came into the world, 
labored and suffered as he did; and it was no greater 
condescension and humiliation in himself than many 
others have endured. Thousands have appeared in 
the form of servants; and have innocently suffered the 
tortures and ignominy of execution as malefactors. If 
the Son of God was the highest of all created intelli- 
gences, his coming into the world in the form of a 
servant, and suffering the disgrace and tortures of the 
cross would be no humiliation on the part of Deity; 
and his own humiliation appears infinitely less than if 
he were divine. 

If the Son of God be only a created being, whether 
human, or human and superangelic, he does not 
appear to be capable of making a propitiation for the 
sins of the world. It is hard to conceive that any 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 335 

creature, however exalted, can perform more than 
his own duty; or that he should have a surplus of 
righteousness to appropriate for the benefit of others. 
If one should volunteer his services for the assistance 
of another, he would be either under obligation, or 
not under obligation to do it. If he were under obli- 
gation to tender the kind offices, he would do only 
what was his own duty. If he were not under obliga- 
tion to offer his kindness, he would not do his own 
duty while he communicated assistance to others. Of 
course, there would be an interval, in which he was 
free from discharging his own personal obligations; 
and could perform duty in behalf of others. But not 
to insist on the inconsistency of such a method; the 
assistance, which one created being can bestow upon 
another, is limited in its very nature. Suppose one 
man dies for another. The sufferings of the former 
are only equivalent to the life of the latter. Suppose 
one should offer his life for the preservation of the 
lives of several of his equal fellow beings, the offering 
would be unequal to the object to be accomplished. 
If he should offer his life to save one soul from ever- 
lasting death, the sacrifice would be entirely inade- 
quate for the purpose. Should he offer his life for 
the salvation of the whole human race from endless 
destruction, what numbers could give the dispropor- 
tion between the sacrifice and the object to be ob- 
tained! A sacrifice made by any created being bears 
no comparison in its value with the sacrifice made by 
Divinity in conjunction with humanity. 

If the atonement be of limited value and efficacy, 
sin appears to be of finite guilt. There is a just pro- 
portion, an exact correspondence between the virtue 
of the sacrifice and the malignity of sin, which is 
expiated by it. As much as any system reduces the 
excellence of the victim and the consequent value of 
his sacrifice, just so much it reduces the guilt and ill 
desert of sin. If a finite being can make atonement 
for sin, it follows that sin is but a finite evil. 



336 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

The honor and force of the divine law is in propor- 
tion to the guilt of transgression. A transgression of 
civil law, viewed only in relation to this law, is a finite 
evil. It is committed by a finite being against a lim- 
ited authority; and the transgressor can make satis- 
faction or expiation for his crimes. He can satisfy the 
demands of the law which he has violated. The 
limitations of the guilt of his offences denote the limit- 
ations of the law he had transgressed, and of the 
authority, which he had offended. 

If transgression of the divine law contain but finite 
guilt, the law violated, and the Lawgiver must, of course, 
have those limitations, which appear to be inconsist- 
ent with the perfect authority of Jehovah. As much 
as the evil of sin is diminished, so much the law of 
God is shorn of its divine excellence, and becomes like 
another law. If sin be but a finite evil, the divine 
law cannot justly inflict, or threaten an infinite pun- 
ishment. A victim of limited capacity could make an 
atonement; and if atonement were not made, a trans- 
gressor might make expiation for his own sins; and 
then claim exemption from further punishment. 
Deny the divinity of Christ, and the covenant of 
redemption appears less important; the atonement ap- 
pears to lose much, if not all, of its virtue; sin appears 
to be divested of much of its criminality; the divine law 
appears to be weakened; and the whole method of 
salvation appears to suffer a great diminution of its 
divine excellences. 

The doctrine of Christ's divinity proves that the 
love of God for the human race was very great. This 
is argued from the greatness of the Father's love for 
the Son. The Father testified of him in the most 
affectionate manner: "This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased." "The Father loveth the 
Son; and hath given all things into his hand." But not- 
withstanding the intimate union subsisting between the 
Father and the Son, so that the latter is said to be in 
the bosom of the former; notwithstanding the great- 
ness of the Father's love for his only begotten and 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 337 

dearly beloved Son, yet he sent him into the world 
that he might redeem it. He spared not his own Son, 
but delivered him up for us all. The greatness of 
God's love for the world is inferred from his sending 
his Son into the world to make a propitiation for sin. 
If his Son were divine; if he were in union with him 
in all his counsels, and in all his operations, then it 
was a great thing, a great expression of love for the 
human race, to send this partner of his throne into 
the world in the form of a servant; to expose him to 
the greatest indignity, and subject him to the deepest 
humiliation. Such sacrifice on the part of Deity 
expresses, in the strongest manner, his love for fallen 
humanity. The scriptures represent the love of God 
toward the human race to be very great. ''God 
commendeth his love toward us,"' Rom. 5:8. "Behold 
what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon 
us, that we should be called the sons of God," 1 John 
3:1. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 
he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
our sins," 1 John4:!0. "Greater love hath no man 
than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" 
John 15:13. "For when we were yet without strength, 
in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" Rom. 5:6. 
If the Son of God was merely human, divine love 
for the human race does not appear extraordinarily 
great in offering him in sacrifice for their salvation. 
Anv sovereign, who had a sense of the interest of his 
kingdom, would, if occasion required, sacrifice one of 
his subjects, if his death would procure the preserva- 
tion and highest interest of the rest. By this act he 
would manifest no more love for his kingdom than 
the value he set upon the subject he offered in their 
behalf. But if, instead of giving up one of his com- 
mon subjects for the preservation of the rest, he 
should make an offering of his only son, the sole heir 
of all his substance and authority, his love for his 
kingdom would appear incomparably greater. In like 
manner, if the Son, whom God sent into the world 
43 



338 CONNEXION OP DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

and offered in sacrifice upon the cross, were only 
human, his love for the world would not be manifested 
in a very high degree. It would appear only in exact 
proportion to the value he set upon the victim. If 
the Son, who was sent into the world were a super- 
angelic being, God's love for mankind in sending him 
into the world to make a sacrifice for sin, would ap- 
pear greater, than if he were merely human. But 
upon this hypothesis his manifested love for the world 
would not answer to that high description, which is 
given of it in the sacred scriptures. It would appear 
unspeakably less, than it would appear by admitting 
that the Son, who made a sacrifice for sin, was not 
only the "second man," but "the Lord from heaven;" 
that he was not only in the "form of a servant," but 
that he was "the Lord of glory." Admit the divinity 
of Christ, and the love of God manifested toward the 
human race appears worthy of him; it appears adapted 
to their necessities; and correspondent to the language 
of scripture, which exhibits it. 

The doctrine of Christ's divinity appears to be the 
foundation of justification by faith in his name. If 
he be divine, he is mighty to save. "He is able to 
save them to the uttermost that come unto God by 
him. Neither is there salvation in any other; for 
there is none other name under heaven given among 
men whereby we must be saved. For other founda- 
tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ. I know whom I have believed, and am per- 
suaded that he is able to keep that which I have 
committed unto him against that day." The absolute 
sufficiency of Jesus Christ to save, appears to be ex- 
pressed by these passages of scripture. If he possess 
this absolute sufficiency, he is able to make an expia- 
tion for sin. He is able to be the end of the law for 
righteousness to every one that believeth. If he pos- 
sess this ability, people may with safety have faith in 
his name. They may with consistency not only be- 
lieve the doctrines, which he taught; but they may 



IX>CTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 339 

repose entire confidence in his merits, and in the ful- 
filment of his promises. Faith in the Lord Jesus is 
one of the most prominent conditions of justification 
and salvation. "Being justified by faith, we have 
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith 
in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remis- 
sion of sins that are past, through the forbearance of 
God. Whosoever believeth in him should not perish^ 
but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life. By him all that believe are justified from 
all things, from which ye could not be justified by the 
law of Moses. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved. Ye believe in God, believe 
also in me." By this last text of scripture it appears 
that Christ designed to convey an idea that there was 
the same ground for believing in him, that there was 
for believing in God. 

If Christ be divine, it is suitable that we should 
make him the Object of our faith, it is safe to make 
him the Object of our confidence and trust, it is his 
just due that we should view and honor him as the 
Author of salvation. There is no caution given, in the 
scriptures, lest we should love the Lord Jesus too 
much; repose too much confidence in his merits; or 
ascribe too much honor to his name. He testified 
that he had all authority in heaven and in earth; and 
he proved that it was his prerogative to forgive sins. 
Such a Being is a proper object of faith. Such a being 
is competent to make a sacrifice for sin, and to justify 
rebellious subjects on his own conditions. 

If Jesus Christ be merely a finite being, deputized 
and commissioned of God to be a priest; to make an 
offering for sin, to be a Mediator and Savior, he must 
receive his qualifications from him, who appointed him 
to these high and important offices. If this be true, 
why does faith terminate in this dependent agent? Why 



340 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURAL1TV WITH OTHEK 

is not intimation given that he is but an instrument, by 
which God operates; that faith and confidence must 
not be reposed absolutely in him; but must extend ulti- 
mately to God? Why is not the divine prerogative 
guarded with greater circumspection; and why is not 
a barrier raised with such visible discrimination, that 
it would naturally prevent people from giving God's 
glory to another. Christ said, "ye believe in God, 
believe also in me." This language naturally conveys 
an idea, that belief in Christ was no less important 
than belief in God. When Christ was at meat in a 
Pharisee's house, a certain woman, who was a sinner, 
came and stood behind him weeping, washed his feet 
with tears, kissed them, anointed and wiped them with 
the hairs of her head. Jesus said unto her, "Thy 
sins are forgiven. Thy faith hath saved thee; go in 
peace." In view of her conduct toward Christ there 
can be no doubt that her faith was in him; and it ap- 
pears equally evident that it was on the ground of this 
faith he forgave and saved her. Jesus said unto 
Thomas, "because thou hast seen me thou hast be- 
lieved, blessed are they, that have not seen, and yet have 
believed." John the Baptist taught the necessity and 
importance of faith in Christ. "He that believeth 
on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth 
not the Son shall not see life." Christ expressed the 
same sentiment when he said, "He that believeth on 
me hath everlasting life." The apostles attached the 
same importance to faith in the Son of God. When 
the keeper of the prison inquired of Paul and Silas 
what be must do to be saved, their reply was, "Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." 
The aposiles taught, that justification was by faith in 
the Son of God. When the scriptures attach such 
an importance to faith in Christ, it seems unreasona- 
ble to believe that he is only a created being. God 
has sent prophets, apostles, and other holy men into 
the world, who have died martyrs for the cause of 
religion. He hath sent angels also to minister to 



DOCTRINES OF THE SAGRED SCRIPTURES. 341 

those, who are heirs of salvation. Of what avail 
would it be to trust in them? Or what connexion would 
there be between faith in them and salvation? The 
same undoubtedly, that there would be between faith 
in Christ and salvation, if he were not superior to one 
of them. If the Son be but a finite being, the ground 
of faith in his name appears to be greatly weakened; 
confidence in his merits appears to be presumption; 
and justification by faith in his name seems to cast the 
divine Sovereign into the back ground in the scheme 
of redemption. But admit the divinity of Christ and 
his union with the Father, and christian faith begins 
and terminates in Deity; confidence in the Savior is 
well founded; and justification, founded on faith in the 
merits of Christ, is consistent with the validity of the 
divine law. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is intimately connected 
with the doctrine of saints' perseverance. If the 
contracting parties in the work of redemption be 
divine, each is able to perform, and will faithfully 
perform his stipulated part. The Son agreed to come 
into the world to do the will of his Father. It was 
the Father's will to lay upon him the iniquity of us 
all. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put 
him to grief." In view of this suffering, he said in 
prayer to the Father, "not as I will, but as thou wilt." 
At another time he said, "I came down from heaven, 
not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent 
me." He did and suffered according to contract, 
which was the will of the Father. As a recompense 
for what he did and suffered, he was to see his seed. 
He was to see of the travail of his soul and be satis- 
fied. He was to receive the heathen for his inherit- 
ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his 
possession. Christ declared that the Father had given 
him some of* the human race, "I have manifested thy 
name unto the men, which thou gavest me out of the 
world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me. I 



342 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

pray not for the world, but for them, which thou hast 
given me. 

Those, who are given to Christ are his, not by gift 
only; but they will be his by faith in him, and by union 
with him. "All that the Father giveth me, shall come 
to me." When they are renewed by the Holy Spirit, 
who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and 
are brought into his kingdom, they are truly his peo- 
ple; and he has then received his stipulated recom- 
pense. These constitute his kingdom; he has author- 
ity to rule over them, and he is their King. If he be 
divine, he is competent to this degree of sovereignty. 
He is able to keep his subjects under his dominion. 
The same Spirit which he sent to bring them into 
subjection to his authority, he is able to send for the 
purpose of guiding and supporting them in the ways 
of truth and obedience. If the Holy Spirit be divine, 
he is able to perform this part of the work. He is 
able to carry on the work of sanctification in the heart, 
till it is perfected. He is not only able, but he will 
do it. "He, which hath begun a good work in you, 
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." With 
his gracious operations believers are sealed unto the 
day of redemption. 

Christ has expressed his ability to keep his sub- 
jects from apostasy. He saith, "I give unto them 
eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall 
any man pluck them cut of my hand," John 10:28. 
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in 
thy name; those, that thou gavest me 1 have kept, and 
none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, (i. e. 
but the son of perdition, not being given to me, is lost) 
that the scripture might be fulfilled," John 17:12. 
"Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none" 
John 18:9. "He is able to save them to the uttermost 
that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to 
make intercession for them," Heb. 7:25. Now unto him 
that is able to keep you from falling, and to present 
you faultless before the presence of his glory with 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 343 

exceeding joy," Jude 24. These texts appear to 
prove that Jesus Christ is able, and that he actually 
does save believers from final apostasy. It is admit- 
ted that Christ performs this work by sending the 
Holy Spirit, and by intercession with the Father. But 
what created being has authority to send the Holy 
Spirit into the hearts of believers to comfort and to 
stablish them? What created being has invariable 
prevalence with God in behalf of transgressors? 

If Jesus Christ save his people from their sins, 
there appears to be evidence that he is divine. Those, 
who are renewed, are renewed by divine power. 
They are born of the Spirit; they are born of God. 
They are created in (or through) Christ Jesus unto 
good works. It requires no less power to preserve 
spiritual life in the soul, than it did at first to originate 
it. There is nothing in renewed humanity, which se- 
cures it from declension. If the parents of the human 
race apostatized from God, and lost their primitive 
dignity and purity, there is nothing in human nature, 
partially sanctified, which will secure it from final 
apostasy. As the Lord Jesus keeps his people so that 
none of them will be lost, there seems to be clear 
evidence that his power is divine. 

The Son of God possesses all authority over his 
mediatorial kingdom. He is King of saints. But 
what is this extent of authority, if his power be not 
commensurate with it? If his power be finite, his king- 
dom appears to be less secure, than if his power were 
infinite. It appears that his subjects could not have 
perfect confidence in him. If they look to him for 
that divine influence, which is necessary to keep them 
from declension, what assurance can a finite being 
give, that he can command the operations of God's 
Spirit to guide and support them? Should he attempt 
to sustain them by his own power, the work would be 
disproportionate to his ability. Other power might 
be as great as his, and counteract all his operations. 
Or it might be greater than his, and subvert his whole 



344 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

kingdom. But could not power be imparted to him 
from the infinite Being, which would enable him to 
secure all the subjects of his kingdom? It is admitted 
that power was communicated to the man Christ Jesus 
in the same manner as it was communicated to prophets 
and apostles; but in a higher degree. If, by the reception 
of this power, he was able to support spiritual life in 
believers, then prophets and apostles might do the 
same in proportion to the strength given them. But 
the scriptures afford no evidence that believers are, 
in any degree, kept from apostasy, by prophets, or 
apostles. Were it possible that a finite being should 
be qualified, by power imparted to him, to stablish his 
subjects unto the end, and to bring his kingdom to 
consummation, it seems improper to call him a king. 
It seems to be a perversion of language to call one a 
king or savior, who depends on a higher being for all 
his power and authority. An idea of absolute depend- 
ence does not correspond with our ideas of perfect 
sovereignty. If Moses could, with strict propriety, 
be called the savior of the Israelites from Egyptian 
bondage; if he could be called, in the true sense of the 
word, the author of the miracles, which God wrought 
by his hand, then might a created being, if compe- 
tently endued with power from on high, be called the 
Savior of the world; or the Author of salvation. But 
it is evident that such is not the natural use of the 
words, author and savior. If Christ be not divine, it 
follows that the head of the church is not essentially 
different from one of the members of his body; that 
the head-stone of the corner is not essentially differ- 
ent from any stone of the building; that the Redeemer 
and redeemed are almost upon an equality. It seems 
that believers could not repose absolute confidence in 
his merits and efficiency. It seems that his subjects 
might be plucked out of his hand, and be finally lost. 
It seems that he could not assure the subjects of his 
kingdom below, that they would be subjects of his 
kingdom above. Limit the power of the Savior, and 



DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 345 

the perseverance of saints appears to be uncertain; 
and there appears to be a possibility that he may lose 
a part, or all of his recompense. The divinity of 
Jesus Christ appears to be intimately connected with 
the final judgment of the human race. The scrip- 
tures abundantly assert that he will officiate as Judge 
on that important occasion; and administer reward 
and punishment according to characters. "The Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
the Son. We shall all stand before the judgment seat 
of Christ. Who shall judge the quick and the dead 
at his appearing and his kingdom. When the Son of 
man shall come in .his glory, and all the holy angels 
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his 
glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, 
and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he 
shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on 
the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his 
right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of 
the world. Then shall he say also unto them on the 
left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And 
these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but 
the righteous into life eternal." 

If Christ be divine, as well as human, he is worthy 
of the judgment seat; and he is competent to perform 
the duties of his office. If his knowledge be not cir- 
cumscribed, he knows all the windings of the human 
heart. He knows all the thoughts, all the desires, all 
the words, all the actions of every individual of the 
human race, from Adam down to his latest offspring. 
If his wisdom be unlimited, he is able to compare 
every exercise of the human heart, and every action 
of human life with divine requirements, and discern 
their coincidence, or disagreement. He is able to 
weigh the guilt of every offence, and apportion pun- 
ishment according to its desert. He is able also to 
44 



346 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

assign reward agreeably to the divine promises. If 
no power be greater than his, he can carry his deci- 
sions into execution. He can banish the wicked from 
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power; and consign them to everlasting punishment; 
and he can receive the righteous to life eternal. If 
the Judge of the earth be divine as well as human, 
the scenes of the last day appear with the most awful 
solemnity. The human race, waked from their long 
sleep of death, and those who are alive on the earth 
are summoned to attend. He who created and re- 
deemed the world appears on the judgment seat. 
With one look he distinguishes characters. With one 
word he separates them to the right and left. There 
is no deception. There is no error of judgment. The 
sentence is pronounced. There is no appeal. The 
work is done. The business of this all eventful day is 
closed for eternity. The object, the transactions, the 
issues of this day are worthy of a divine Judge. 

If Christ be merely a created being, the judgment 
seat appears with less majesty; and the whole scene 
appears with less grandeur. It is presumed that no 
finite being can, by the efforts of his own mind, discern 
the whole character of every individual of the human 
race. It seems incredible that such an amazing extent 
of knowledge should be infused, at once, into any 
finite capacity. It appears incredible that any created 
being should be vested with authority to judge and 
pronounce sentence, in a case infinitely momentous, in 
his own name, and with all the majesty of divinity. 
If the judge be an unconscious organ, through which 
the Deity speaks and acts; or if he be prompted in 
every word and action by the divine Being, he appears 
with only borrowed excellence, borrowed authority, 
and with only a semblance of the majesty of a Judge. 
It is admitted that the divine Sovereign has a perfect 
right to administer his laws and to award retribution 
as he pleases. But at the same time it is expected 
that his method of government and of final decision 



DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 



347 



will be worthy of himself, and will manifest the per- 
fections of his nature. Should the judiciary depart- 
ment of a civil government be naturally unqualified to 
perform the functions of their office; but were taught 
and dictated in every step of their proceedings by 
the chief magistrate of the state or nation, would not 
the bench labor under a burden of indignity, unbecom- 
ing the judgment seat? If we may reason from small 
things to great, it must be inferred, that, if Jesus 
Christ be not competent in his own nature to perform 
the duties of Judge of the world, he appears with 
infinitely less dignity; and the whole scene and all the 
transactions of the judgment day appear with much 
less grandeur, than if the Judge were divine, and of 
himself performed the duties of his office. If it be 
admitted that the Judge of the world unites in him- 
self human and divine nature, he is not only touched 
with a feeling of human infirmities; but he has also a 
consciousness of divine claims. While he feels a lively 
interest in the restoration and happiness of humanity, 
he feels a holy jealousy for the rights of the divine 
throne. 

The doctrine of Christ's divinity is intimately con- 
nected with the doctrine of future retribution. If 
Jesus Christ be both human and divine, he is able to 
make an expiation for sin; to satisfy the demands of 
the divine law; to work out a complete righteousness 
for the justification of the disobedient through faith in 
his name. Though sin be of infinite guilt, yet the 
victim offered upon the cross was sufficient to make 
an adequate expiation. Having magnified and honored 
the divine law, he was able to treat with rebellious 
subjects. He was able to propose his own conditions 
for their reconciliation and pardon. He was able to 
confer the promised reward upon those who should 
comply with the terms proposed; and he was equally 
able to inflict the punishment, which stood against 
impenitent transgressors. 



348 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

If Christ be but a finite being, and still made a 
propitiation for sin, it follows that sin is of limited 
guilt; otherwise he could not have made a complete 
expiation. Admit the finitude of the Savior, and he 
appears inadequate to make provision for the ever- 
lasting blessedness of the human race. What can a 
finite being offer, which is equivalent to that eternal 
weight of glory, which is promised to the righteous. 
Should he plead all the finite qualities of his sacrifice, 
it would appear entirely disproportionate to a salvation 
from an infinite, an endless punishment. If the reward 
conferred on believers were only commensurate with 
his limited righteousness, the time would come, when 
they had received all that was purchased for them. 
It is natural to inquire, what will be their condition 
afterward? 

If the sacrifice, offered upon the cross, was made 
by merely a created being, and the value of it was, of 
course, limited; if sin be but a finite evil, those, who 
die in their sins and receive the sentence of condem- 
nation, are not in a desperate condition. As a limited 
ransom has once made satisfaction for iniquity, it may 
do the same again. As sin contains but finite guilt, 
finite punishment will make expiation for it. Of course, 
a point in duration will arrive, when transgressors, 
who died in impenitence, will have suffered all the 
punishment incurred by their offences during their 
probationary state. They will then have a claim to 
be liberated from their sufferings. As they had satis- 
fied the demands of the law, they would be no longer 
under its curse. As they had not complied with the 
conditions of the Gospel, they could not receive its 
promises. It is hard to conceive what would be their 
situation. Admit the divinity of Christ and the right- 
eous have assurance that they shall, in another state 
of existence, enjoy everlasting blessedness; and the 
finally impenitent have the same evidence that they 
shall suffer an equal duration of punishment. Deny 
the divinity of Christ, and there appears to be no 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 349 

proof that the glory and blessedness of the righteous 
will be immortal; and there appears to be equal want 
of proof that the punishment of the wicked will be 
endless. By this hypothesis the encouragement and 
hope of the righteous are greatly abated; and the 
fears of the wicked are almost destroyed. Reward 
and punishment lose almost all their effect. 

A correct belief of the Son is intimately connected 
with a correct belief of the Father; and a denial, or 
dishonor of the former implies a denial or dishonor of 
the latter. The relative names, Father and Son, 
express an affinity subsisting between them. If these 
names, which represent the distinctions of the divine 
Nature, are used figuratively, there is, undoubtedly, 
ground in the subject for this figurative language. 
When the names, father and son are used to express 
the relationship, subsisting between a parent and his 
male offspring, the first ideas, conveyed by these rela- 
tive names, are their affinity and the sameness of their 
nature. If these names are correctly applied to the 
divine nature, they naturally convey the same ideas. 
If a parent be human, it follows, of course, that his 
son is human. If figurative language be drawn from 
this relationship, and applied to the divine Nature, it 
is expected that it will express some striking analogy 
between the relationship of the Father and the Son, 
and the relationship of a human parent and his child. 
If the Son be divine, this name expresses the analogy 
in the clearest manner; it expresses their intimate 
connexion, and the sameness of their nature. If the 
Son be not divine, the analogy is greatly weakened^ 
and their relative names are much less expressive. 

It is admitted that God is called the Father of the 
human family. In a more special sense he is called 
the Father of believers; and they are called his sons. 
It appears that Christ claimed a relationship with the 
Father much nearer than this. The Jews understood 
him to call God his Father in a peculiar sense, in a 
sense, which implied that he himself was divine. 



350 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

After Christ had healed an impotent man on the Sab- 
bath, the Jews accused him of profanation of holy 
time. He replied, "My Father worketh hitherto 
and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more 
to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sab- 
bath, but said also that God was his Father, {jcctrt^a 
iliov) making himself equal with God. iSiov is expres- 
sive and definite in its meaning; it signifies, peculiaris 
sui generis, suus. Hed. Lex.; (peculiar, of its own 
kind, his own.) Sohleusner, under his first definition 
of the word gives the following significations; proprius, 
suus, et de omni, quod quis jure suum vocare potest, 
et ullo aliquo modo ad alequem pertinet. (Special, 
proper; his own, in respect to every thing, which one 
can justly call his own, and belongs, in any way, to 
him.) 

At another time, when Christ called God his Father, 
the Jews accused him of blasphemy, because he being 
a man made himself God. It appears evident that 
the Jews believed that the Son of God was divine, and 
that he was the promised Messiah. But they believ- 
ed that Jesus was not that personage; that he was 
merely a man, and that he made pretensions to divinity. 
In this view of the subject they imagined that he 
blasphemed by claiming a relationship with God, 
which implied equality. They believed, that by 
calling himself the Son of God, he blasphemed; and 
that, according to their law he ought to die as a blas- 
phemer. If the Jews formed wrong ideas of the 
language of Christ, when he called God his Father, it 
seems not a little extraordinary that he did not correct 
their mistake; and shew thern plainly that his rela- 
tionship to God was to be understood in a reduced 
sense; that it was no more than the relationship of a 
creature to his Creator. 

It is in vain to attempt to maintain that the Jews 
knowingly perverted the language of Christ; and 
made him say what he did not design to say. For 
the same word, which they connected with Father, to 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 351 

express the near connexion of the Son with him and 
their sameness of nature, the apostle Paul connects 
with Son, to shew the special relationship of the Father 
to him, Rom. 8:32. The same meaning, which the 
unbelieving Jews attached to the word (/5/ov) the 
apostle undoubtedly attached to it. If their applica- 
tion of it were preposterous, the apostle's application 
of it will stand with all its force. 

If the connexion of the Father and Son imply the 
divinity of the latter, it follows that a denial of the 
Son implies a denial of the Father, as such; and the 
dishonor, which is cast upon the Son is cast also upon 
the Father. The scriptures represent the connexion 
of the Father and Son, to be so intimate that what is 
predicated of one is predicated of the other. "The 
Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the 
Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these 
also doeth the Son likewise. For as the Father 
raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the 
Son quickeneth whom he will. As the Father know- 
eth me, even so know I the Father. If I do not the 
works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye 
may know and believe that the Father is in me and I 
in him. The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
the works." These texts afford evidence that there 
is such a union of the Father and Son, that there is a 
joint operation in all their works. Neither of them 
doeth any thing of himself; i. e. separately and dis- 
tinctly; but what one doth the other doth also. 

If there be this intimate connexion of the Father 
and Son, it is evident that what honors one, honors 
the other; that the Father may be glorified in the 
Son; and that whosoever had seen the Son had also 
seen the Father. This sentiment is clearly expressed 
in scripture. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same 
hath not the Father. He is antichrist that denieth 
the Father and the Son. It appears that St. John 
considered a denial of the Son a denial of the Father. 



352 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

This is evidently true in view of their relationship. 
If there be no Son, there is no Father; and if there 
be no Father, there is no Son. If relationship be 
denied on one side, it is, of course, denied on the other. 
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same doth not ac- 
knowledge the Father. He does not acknowledge 
his relationship. He does not acknowledge the testi- 
mony, which the Father bore concerning him at his 
baptism, at his transfiguration, and by raising him from 
the dead. 

It will be better understood what St. John meant 
by a denial of the Son, if the occasion and object of 
writing his epistle be considered. At that time, there 
were some, who denied the divinity, and others, who 
denied the humanity, of Christ. One great object of 
this epistle was to correct these errors. In this epistle 
he calls Jesus Christ "that eternal Life, which was 
with the Father, and was manifested unto us." He 
calls him the Son of God. He set it down as a test 
of true and inspired teachers that they confessed Jesus 
Christ was come in the flesh; and a denial of this 
truth, he considered a characteristic mark of anti- 
christ. It is evident that by a denial of the Son, the 
apostle meant a rejection of his divinity or humanity; 
either of which would be a refusal to acknowledge 
him to be the Christ of God. When St. John speaks 
of the denial of the Son in connexion with a denial of 
the Father, he undoubtedly means, by Son, the divin- 
ity, not the humanity of Christ. On this ground it is 
manifest that he, who denieth the Son, doth not 
believe in the Father. The apostle James appears 
to have the same opinion of the connexion of the 
Father and the Son, when he speaks of false teachers, 
who denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

If the Son be not divine, a denial of his divinity is 
not a denial of the Father. If the Son be merely 
human, the connexion between his humanity and the 



DOCTRINES OP THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 353 

Father is not so near that a denial of the former im- 
plies a denial of the latter. 

So intimate is the connexion of the Father and the 
Son, that denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and honor 
of one imply denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and 
honor of the other, "He is antichrist, that denieth 
the Father and the Son." Jesus said to the Jews, 
"Ye neither know me, nor my Father; if ye had 
known me, ye should have known my Father also." 
When Philip asked Christ to shew him the Father, 
he replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and 
yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath 
seen me, hath seen the Father. He that hateth me hateth 
my Father also. — Now have they both seen and hated 
both me and my Father. He that honoreth not the 
Son, honoreth not the Father, which hath sent him." 

If Christ be not divine, a denial of him is not a 
denial of the Father. People might deny him divine 
perfections, divine authority, and divine works, and at 
the same time acknowledge the divine authority of 
the Father. If the Son be not divine, people might 
see and know him, and, at the same time, they might 
neither see nor know the Father. They might hate 
him for his pretensions to divinity, and at the same 
time, not hate Divinity itself. They might honor 
him excessively, and, by that mean, they might dis- 
honor the Father. But if the Son be divine, conse- 
quences follow agreeably to the Scriptures. He is 
not alone, but the Father is with him. What belongs 
to one belongs also to the other. Christ said, "All 
things that the Father hath are mine. All mine are 
thine, and thine are mine." Such is their union of 
nature and of operations, that what honors or dishonors 
the Son, honors or dishonors the Father. 

It may be argued with some degree of plausibility, 
that if God send a messenger into the world to treat 
with the human race, though he be a created being, 
they ought to receive him in his delegated capacity, 
that they ought to honor him; and that an acknowl- 
45 



354 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY WITH OTHER 

edgctnent of him and respect shewn him would be an 
acknowledgment of the sovereignty of heaven, and 
would reflect honor on the Divine Majesty. If the 
sovereign of a nation send a minister to negotiate with 
a foreign power, if that power receive him as a legit- 
imate ambassador, this act is not only an acknowledg- 
ment of his authority, but it is an acknowledgment of 
the authority of his sovereign, and an expression of 
respect toward him. All this is undoubtedly true. 
But whom does he send to perform this important 
business? He sends one of his own species; a man 
like himself; equal in nature and capacity with his 
own. He is entitled by his nature and qualifications 
to as much honor as his sovereign; and being commis- 
sioned, he has the same authority to transact the 
business contemplated, as he, who sent him. It is 
expected that he will be honored, and the respect 
shewn him will extend to his sovereign. But suppose 
the sovereign sends a minister, who has not one natural 
qualification for the duties of his office, but is instructed, 
and dictated, and prompted in every word, and in 
every step of his proceedings, would he not be disre- 
spected; and would not the disrespect be extended to 
him that sent him? The application is easy. If God 
has sent a messenger into the world to treat with the 
human race, who is not naturally qualified for the 
duties of his office, but is a mere instrument, or organ, 
through which the divine Being acts, it might be 
expected that people would respect him less than if 
he possessed natural qualifications for the duties of 
his office. It might be expected that they would 
deny him in his official capacity; and if they honored 
him even as they honored the Father, it would be by 
dishonoring both. But suppose the Son to be divine, 
and he is worthy of honor; and the glory, which is 
given him is given to the Father also. 

The doctrine of the Trinity appears to be the main 
pillar of Christianity; the key stone of the arch, which 
supports the whole fabric; the basis of man's salvation* 
If this doctrine be expunged from the Bible, there 



DOCTRINES OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 355 

appears to be a chasm through the whole system. 
The most prominent doctrines of the gospel appear 
to stand or fall with it. If the divine plurality be 
denied, one mystery, it is true, is removed from the 
sacred scriptures; but in its place there appear to be 
left absurdity and contradiction. The Christian 
religion, without this doctrine, without this vinculum 
of other scripture doctrines, appears like a scheme of 
human invention, designed to reconcile contrarieties, 
and to effectuate impossibilities. This, more than any 
other doctrine, distinguishes our holy religion from 
human systems; and gives it an impression of its 
divine Author, which philosophy could never invent, 
nor ever efface. The light of nature never disclosed 
a method, by which sio could be forgiven, and trans- 
gressors be reconciled to God. 

If the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been exhib- 
ited, be a scriptural doctrine, those, who deny it are 
in great error. They deny the divine excellences of 
the Son of God. They deny the virtue of his atoning 
sacrifice. They deny his absolute ability to save. 
They deny him divine honor. Do they not, of course, 
deny the Lord, who bought them? They disbelieve 
the distinction of the Holy Spirit. They disbelieve 
his office and his peculiar.work. If they do not speak 
a word against him, they withhold from him that 
distinct respect, which is his just due. But we need 
to use the greatest caution in this view of the subject. 
There is danger of drawing wrong inferences from 
others' premises; and if our conclusions from their 
positions are legitimate, they may, notwithstanding, 
heartily disown them. 

If there be simple unity in the divine Nature, and 
divine plurality be not a scriptural doctrine, those, 
who embrace it are in great error. They place that 
confidence in a creature, which they ought to place 
only in the Creator. They make a creature equal 
with God; they make him God, they make him the 
"true God." They honor a creature "even as they 
honor the Father." 



356 CONNEXION OF DIVINE PLURALITY, &C. 

It is important to form correct sentiments of the 
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If we can- 
not form adequate conceptions of the ground of dis- 
tinction in the divine Nature, nor of the ground of 
unity in the divine plurality, it is important that we 
should have such a belief in each, that we may apply 
to each respectively for the blessings, which it is 
their peculiar office to communicate. 

There is an intimate connexion between belief and 
practice. It is not maintained that every one, who 
has a correct creed, possesses a good heart and exhib- 
its a Christian character. The devils believe. But 
a belief of the truth has a natural tendency toward 
virtue and piety; and it would produce these effects, 
if there were no counteracting principle in human 
nature. The gift of revelation implies the necessity 
of believing it; and of believing it agreeably to its 
divine import. When Christianity is corrupted, it 
loses propoitionably its good effect. When the 
Churches, which .the apostle Paul planted, became 
disorderly and immoral, we find they had departed 
from sound doctrine. It is of no use to attempt to 
estimate the quantum of religion among different 
religious denominations; and compare their respective 
values. This is not the province of human reason. 
Were the attempt made, it is presumed that every 
one would find, or would seem to find most among 
those of his own name. But without boasting on the 
one hand, or unjustly criminating on the other, it may- 
be safely said, that in proportion as people depart 
from the faith, which was once delivered to the saints, 
they decline in vital religion and in Christian character. 
If there must be contest for preeminence among 
Christians of different names, let it be a holy emula- 
tion to excel in promoting the interest of the Re- 
deemer's kingdom, and in manifesting the spirit of the 
gospel. Let it be admitted that he knoivs most of God, 
who walks nearest to him. 



687 



THE END. 









I 

■ I 































































' 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOH 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 M 
(724)779-2111 



%< 

<&*- 



A 1,. '. 



r J* r ' '%:. i,'-^ ' N . ^ 



^ ' ^. 



























^ S 



V 









>*> 






,0 o 












o X 
«5 -a * 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 475 530 3 



